I think the whole idea here is frightening and unjust. We are supposed to give all people equal rights. What people might do is irrelevant. A person whose demographic/conditional expectation is highly criminal should be given an equal opportunity to rise above it, else they might see the system is rigged against them and turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's frightening depending on how you use the data.
A good example perhaps is that I like to horse around when I'm at the beach. I'm more like to get hurt than others who are more cautious. I'm also more likely to hit people accidentally.
I had some parents of younger children approach me and ask me to stay on the far side of the beach. On one hand it felt rude, but on the other it allowed me to be rambunctious and it allowed the parents to prioritize their children's safety.
The world isn't flat enough for this to be a reality yet, but if you cluster people by their morals, you don't have to throw them in jail. Put all the drug users together. Keep the drugs away from people who don't want anything to do with them.
Usually if people are more likely to commit crimes, it's either because they are desperate (which means successful intervention is likely provided you can solve their core problems), or it's because they find that activity/action/crime to be morally or culturally acceptable. To the extent that you can exclude that culture from your own daily life, you don't have to punish/kill that culture.
Pollution is a good counter example. You can't really isolate a culture of pollution because it's going to affect everyone else anyway. So there are limits.
As long as our methods for dealing with criminals evolve appropriately against our ability to detect them, I am okay.
Human history is full of genocide though. I don't think that bodes well for our ability to respect cultures that allow or celebrate things we consider to be crimes.
