Pre-Crime
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
hmm . . . but precognition or seeing ahead of time implies that something has happened and there's evidence or proof to confirm that a crime will have been committed, right? So, it's technically evidence of future existing evidence . . . isn't it?
The bigger problem here is the problem of fate. What if fate existed? AND we could know it? Well, I think that would change everything. Absolutely everything. All of our cognition and anxieties are based on the uncertainty of the future, so I don't think we could even think coherently about such a thing. Our brains probably could not adequately process such input.
I do not think we could still be what we conceive of as human and also create a justice system that could handle something like what exists in minority report, assuming it was possible. People would just shut down, and it would be chaos.
I do not think we could still be what we conceive of as human and also create a justice system that could handle something like what exists in minority report, assuming it was possible. People would just shut down, and it would be chaos.
Without all the complications this basically breaks down into a Free Will vs Determinism discussion.
I don't think it can be justified. In fact, pre-cog is contradictory in itself.
If we had the power of pre-cog(which argues Determinism), it would be pro-Free Will to arrest and convict pre-criminals, because you assume they acted on Free Will. It would be better to alter an event into a favorable outcome(with or without regards to the Butterfly effect) or at least detain/relocate a person without punishment.
In short: If you can stop the future, you are responsible for the future. Pre-cog makes a pre-criminal's guilt relative, if not nullified.
I don't think it can be justified. In fact, pre-cog is contradictory in itself.
If we had the power of pre-cog(which argues Determinism), it would be pro-Free Will to arrest and convict pre-criminals, because you assume they acted on Free Will. It would be better to alter an event into a favorable outcome(with or without regards to the Butterfly effect) or at least detain/relocate a person without punishment.
In short: If you can stop the future, you are responsible for the future. Pre-cog makes a pre-criminal's guilt relative, if not nullified.
This is an important point to bring up. Pre-crime is based on the idea that the future is determined. Can we be sure of that? In other words, is pre-cog true and always true? If the future cannot truly be predicted and without 100% accuracy and consistency, automatic guilt is unjustified.
Precognition just reminds me of witness testimony and witness testimony still needs to be accompanied by evidence.
For me, there would have to be evidence in the here and now to take action in the here and now. And this would have to be proportionate to the actual crime committed to date, such as conspiracy to commit murder verses murder, etc.
I haven’t seen the movie in a long time but it just seemed that they had some trouble integrating this new “technology” in a balanced way. Balancing the weight of precogs as witnesses for example.
If we are assuming that there is the means to determine with absolute accuracy that a crime will be committed in the future, then I think that measures taken to intervene would be justified.
The assumption that with absolute accuracy future events can be known leads to a sense that the linear aspect of time has dissolved to some degree. So, the argument that the crime has not yet occurred is irrelevant. Normal time lines are no longer in play. For all intents and purposes, the crime has occurred.
However, this is all nonsensical because if it was known with absolute accuracy that the crime would be committed then it would not be possible to stop it. If you could stop it, then the absolute accuracy of the prediction would be thrown to the wind.
The assumption that with absolute accuracy future events can be known leads to a sense that the linear aspect of time has dissolved to some degree. So, the argument that the crime has not yet occurred is irrelevant. Normal time lines are no longer in play. For all intents and purposes, the crime has occurred.
However, this is all nonsensical because if it was known with absolute accuracy that the crime would be committed then it would not be possible to stop it. If you could stop it, then the absolute accuracy of the prediction would be thrown to the wind.
What I wonder is how could we as humans, the way we think and feel today, deal with being punished for a crime we technically haven't committed, but would without a doubt commit in the future? I wonder what it would do to our egos and self-views. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be imprisoned for any long period of time knowing that you are guilty of a crime, much less knowing that your future self's crime now has you, at the time being an innocent person, locked up for an extended period. Would we be able to deal with it?
Yes. With pre-cog, a person is basically guilty at the instant of birth. In fact, before they are born. We can even go further than that, pre-criminals became guilty when the universe came into existence. Determinism.
Yeah, they're basically guilty, but I wonder what type of psychological effects it would have on a person to be punished before ever actually committing a crime. Would it be "harder" on this person arrested on pre-cog than it would be on someone who actually committed a crime?
It would blur the line between what is actually reality. In reality as we understand it, you haven't commited the crime. However if we assume pre-cog as accurate then you will commit the crime. I think it is difficult to grasp because it strikes at the heart of what most modern belief systems are based on --free will and choice. It is much more reminicient of more pagen systems like belief in the Fates or the Will of Higher Beings having direct influence on our actions--ie, we are driven to do things beyond our choice, there is no free will. Our sense of reality dictates that ideas are abstracts, not concrete.
I would think that one of the results of such a socieyt would be that we are more likely to be passive--well, I guess I would do it, so I am guilty--and less likely to foster thinking-it would be discouraged--you might have a bad thought. Censored society basically.
I would think that one of the results of such a socieyt would be that we are more likely to be passive--well, I guess I would do it, so I am guilty--and less likely to foster thinking-it would be discouraged--you might have a bad thought. Censored society basically.
So where would they draw the line on prosecuting people for crimes, because I'm sure everyone at some point would commit a crime. Would this pre-cog thing be only used for serious crimes like murder/rape, or would shoplifters also be prosecuted? If not, would shoplifting essentially stop being a crime?
This I understood from the very beginning, and since the movie allowed that intervention was possible, my question became what type of intervention was really appropriate. Anyway, now that I think about it, I think the precogs were more like profilers than witnesses, which I had stated earlier.
The degree to which this is true is of such magnitude that any further comparison of these films is, at kindest, unnecessary.
cheers,
Ian