Pre-Crime

Gaze

Gaze

Donor
MBTI
INFPishy
The premise is addressed in films such as Minority Report, where precrime police prosecute individuals for future crimes they will commit based on psychic visions of precog humans. In many cases, these crimes haven't even been conceived in the mind of the killer at the time of their arrest.

Just as a concept or hypothetical, if we had a device or the capacity to foresee future crime committed, would it ever be justified to arrest and try someone for a crime they haven't yet thought of committing?

And of course there's that pesky little problem of an arrest before the crime is committed which prevents the crime from happening in the first place, which means that crime would never be committed, so how can you arrest someone for committing it?

So, thoughts?
 
Last edited:
It would never be justified. Until someone commits a crime they are innocent of said crime. And it would be terrifying to think of someone misusing that power, how easy it would be to lie about someone and arrest them for reasons other then are being said. Like political offenders.
 
That would be like arresting someone for having dirty and non-moral thoughts, and since we all have them at one point or another, I guess that jails would be very crowded places.
 
The only thing that would maybe be justifiable is some sort of preventative action. So, just change it from "arrest" to "detain" and everything is peachy once people become more accepting and non judgemental of random detainings for themselves and others.

Then each person could be given levels of detainment and once you reach a certain level it might be justifiable to restrict various previledges. Even then it seems wrong though.
 
I fucking loved minority report.
something about a precrime arrest really irks me. But so does knowing that victimization could be avoided, and wouldn't be

On a more practical, and politically condescending note:
In most cases crime can be prevented by improving society and communities.
 
If proven accurate, I think pre-crime arrests would be justified.

Analogous thought experiment:
You discover that your sibling's spouse is planning to put deadly poison in your sibling's wine glass tomorrow evening in order to collect on life insurance. Only you are aware of your own discovery, and you tell no one. Instead, you pour antidote into your sibling's wine glass. When your sibling's spouse adds the poison, the antidote neutralizes it, so your sibling suffers no ill effects and never suspects the plot. The spouse is confused and disappointed at the lack of results.
Your covert intervention was the only thing that prevented the murder from occurring; the spouse still wanted it to happen, and thought that all the necessary measures had been taken to see it through. Did your intervention absolve the spouse of guilt?
 
Neuropedia said:
what if one's knowledge that one is going to commit a crime is enough to prevent one from committing it?
Click to expand...

This would likely be the case with crimes of passion, and under such a system, it would be advisable to simply warn the perpetrators.
 
TheLastMohican said:
If proven accurate, I think pre-crime arrests would be justified.

Analogous thought experiment:
You discover that your sibling's spouse is planning to put deadly poison in your sibling's wine glass tomorrow evening in order to collect on life insurance. Only you are aware of your own discovery, and you tell no one. Instead, you pour antidote into your sibling's wine glass. When your sibling's spouse adds the poison, the antidote neutralizes it, so your sibling suffers no ill effects and never suspects the plot. The spouse is confused and disappointed at the lack of results.
Your covert intervention was the only thing that prevented the murder from occurring; the spouse still wanted it to happen, and thought that all the necessary measures had been taken to see it through. Did your intervention absolve the spouse of guilt?
Click to expand...

No, because the spouse still committed a crime - attemped murder, etc. The legal system clearly allows for prosecution of crimes based on motive and actions which reflect intents. But this situation is not analogous to precrime because a precrime arrestee, at least according to the film, may be arrested before they even conceive of the crime. It's one thing to stop someone from committing a crime you know they're about to commit -since there's observable evidence they will commit the crime, as in your scenario, but it's another to arrest someone for a crime they haven't even thought of committing. And there's always free will, since someone who want to commit a crime may decide at the last moment they don't want to go through with it, regretting their actions, etc.

But then another ethical/moral situations comes in your scenario, when the sibling who knows about the intent to poison doesn't reveal it to their sibling. What if the husband found out the sibling knew the plan, changed poisons, without the sibling's knowledge, so that the antidote doesn't work, and the intended victim dies?
 
Last edited:
Neuropedia said:
what if one's knowledge that one is going to commit a crime is enough to prevent one from committing it?
Click to expand...

Good point . . . but

TheLastMohican said:
This would likely be the case with crimes of passion, and under such a system, it would be advisable to simply warn the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

But doesn't this depend on the notion that awareness of a future act will prevent us from committing the act assuming that the act can be prevented?
 
Doesn't the whole notion of precrime, suggest that the crime is destined to happen, despite any attempts to prevent it from happening, which seems to contradict it's own premise that something that will happen can and will be prevented?
 
I don't think this would be justified. Innocent until proven guilty and you can't prove guilt without evidence and a crime. All you have to go on is the word of a psychic? Did that Miss Cleo mess teach us something about psychics?
 
TheLastMohican said:
This would likely be the case with crimes of passion, and under such a system, it would be advisable to simply warn the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

I believe that this would thus raise the issue of knowing certainly what choice they would make if given the information. Noting that pre-cognition is fictional - do you believe that pre-cog could differentiate whether a perpetrator would change their mind? or perhaps we could just give them psychiatric lockdowns until they are deemed to no longer be a danger to others?
 
DevilDoll said:
I don't think this would be justified. Innocent until proven guilty and you can't prove guilt without evidence and a crime. All you have to go on is the word of a psychic? Did that Miss Cleo mess teach us something about psychics?
Click to expand...

:D Yeah, but we're arguing this as if it is a reality that a device or person, has the ability to allow us to see the future.
 
Res said:
No, because the spouse still committed a crime - attemped murder, etc. But this situation is not analogous to precrime because a precrime arrestee, at least according to the film, may be arrested before they even conceive of the crime. It's one thing to stop someone from committing a crime you know they're about to commit -since there's observable evidence they will commit the crime, as in your scenario, but it's another to arrest someone for a crime they haven't even thought of committing. And there's always free will, since someone who want to commit a crime may decide at the last moment they don't want to go through with it, regretting their actions, etc.
Click to expand...
That's calling into question the accuracy of the precognition. For hypothetical purposes I disregarded the possibility of flaws.
Also, I don't think I would advocate the precise system in Minority Report. The movie introduces the concept to us, but it needn't come with all those particulars. I don't think it's efficient
 
Res said:
:D Yeah, but we're arguing this as if it is a reality that a device or person, has the ability to allow us to see the future.
Click to expand...

Ok, but even then how do we know what they are showing us will actually happen? It's still charging someone with a crime they haven't committed based on a hunch that one day they might.
 
TheLastMohican said:
That's calling into question the accuracy of the precognition. For hypothetical purposes I disregarded the possibility of flaws.
Also, I don't think I would advocate the precise system in Minority Report. The movie introduces the concept to us, but it needn't come with all those particulars. I don't think it's efficient — or necessarily just — to lock away all the would-be murderers in a holding facility for indefinite suspension.

This might come down to the ways we view prison sentences. I think they should be primarily used to prevent further crime, and to rehabilitate if possible. Some other people think they should be measured as punishment — for purposes of retribution.



There is that risk. But I wasn't saying that your actions in the situation would have been prudent. I just set it up for consideration of the spouse's guilt.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get you. Ok, in that case, intervention i guess still wouldn't absolve him of guilt, but unless s/he was caught poisoning s/her and succeeded in killing the spouse, then technically the crime of intent wasn't committed, although it's attempted murder.

Interesting scenario, anyone else has thoughts on absolution of guilt for crimes which are unsuccessful attempted and failed?
 
as some have already raised the point, maybe the real question is should someone be prosecuted on intent alone? it's equivalent of asking whether anyone can and should be detained for the intent to kill if there's no evidence, yet, to confirm or affirm that they will kill someone?
 
DevilDoll said:
Ok, but even then how do we know what they are showing us will actually happen? It's still charging someone with a crime they haven't committed based on a hunch that one day they might.
Click to expand...

We can probably all agree that it's not scientifically viable in the real world. This topic is about the moral philosophy of the matter, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top