Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It would depend, if their is a chance of failure then the system should be banned straight away. Innocent people in jail is never a good idea.

If there is no chance of failure however, and the people could be stopped from committing crimes like for instance murder and rape then yes I would say it is a good idea. I really don't like the idea, but it can save people and it can stop some of the most terrible things you can imagine. I think it would be worth it.

If the system proved to be, at the very least, as efficient as our current system, then I would welcome it. If nothing else, it would be a system based on finding the truth, rather than who poses the best argument.

No because you are not punishing a crime. You are making an absolute judgement on the premise that an action may or may not occur, especially in the case where the action is non-existant.



I feel it is far worse for an innocent person to be punished than for a guilty person to be free.

That movie was ok

Originally posted by Storm
Would it be ethical to replace an established system of punishing offenders for crimes they have committed, with a system that imprisons future offenders before they have committed their crime?

No; if a crime is prevented, then there is no crime to punish.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No; if a crime is prevented, then there is no crime to punish.
So you'd rather stand-by and wait for the crime to occur before taking the individual that committed the crime to prison?

The idea of prisons appeals more to me in the sense that it keeps criminals separated from society, not about punishing.

Originally posted by Storm
Would it be ethical to replace an established system of punishing offenders for crimes they have committed, with a system that imprisons future offenders before they have committed their crime?

If the system is flawless, meaning the future always plays out as it is predicted and the system can not be tampered with then I think it's a good system. However if there is even the smallest chance of the system being corrupted or being wrong it shouldn't be used at all.

The principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is quite important to me. As well as the principle that innocent people shouldn't be in prison.

Originally posted by Eis
So you'd rather stand-by and wait for the crime to occur before taking the individual that committed the crime to prison?

If you take one to prison before he committs a crime, then what are you taking him to prison for?

The person is Innocent until they actually do something wrong. To throw a person in prison before they commit any crime is to punish an Innocent Person. That's wrong no matter how you look at it.

Preventing a crime and then throwing them in jail for what they were about to do is invalid.

Too much possible corruption.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you take one to prison before he committs a crime, then what are you taking him to prison for?
I do understand how ethically distressing it sounds, but that individual unless stopped would've murdered another person. Would it be more preferable to stop the foreseen murder and then let the would-be-murderer go?

I suppose the answer to your question would be that he is imprisoned for us having hard proof that he indeed would have committed a murder.

Originally posted by Eis
I do understand how ethically distressing it sounds, but that individual unless stopped would've murdered another person. Would it be more preferable to stop the foreseen murder and then let the would-be-murderer go?

I suppose the answer to your question would be that he is imprisoned for us having hard proof that he indeed would have committed a murder.

What would be the point of putting someone in prison you stopped from doing a crime?

Originally posted by Eis
I do understand how ethically distressing it sounds, but that individual unless stopped would've murdered another person. Would it be more preferable to stop the foreseen murder and then let the would-be-murderer go?

I suppose the answer to your question would be that he is imprisoned for us having hard proof that he indeed would have committed a murder.


What would the punishment be ?


Death penalty or Life in Prison....

Originally posted by chithappens
What would be the point of putting someone in prison you stopped from doing a crime?
If it's a psychopathic killer preventing him from doing it again.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
What would the punishment be ?


Death penalty or Life in Prison....
I don't believe in the death penalty and it doesn't have to be perpetual sentence either. Ideally it would be a case-by-case system, haven't really given it great deal of thought though. But I think it could work.

Originally posted by Eis
If it's a psychopathic killer preventing him from doing it again.



You do realize how silly that is right? You said "again" but he never did it. You wouldn't try to give him sort of counseling? He ain't done shit yet. That could get FAR TOO CORRUPT QUICKLY.

Originally posted by chithappens
You do realize how silly that is right? You said "again" but he never did it. You wouldn't try to give him sort of counseling? He ain't done shit yet. That could get FAR TOO CORRUPT QUICKLY.
I should've said "attempting". Not particularly hard to comprehend my meaning.
Did I say the only alternative for him would be life in prison? Nope did not. It could get corrupt far too quickly? It would certainly meet quite a few difficulties but so does our current system.

The idea of having tangible proof of a would-be murder and sitting on it would be much less preferable, is there another solution I'm not seeing? Stopping the murder then let the man go? Come on.

Originally posted by Eis
I should've said "attempting". Not particularly hard to comprehend my meaning.
Did I say the only alternative for him would be life in prison? Nope did not. It could get corrupt far too quickly? It would certainly meet quite a few difficulties but so does our current system.

The idea of having tangible proof of a would-be murder and sitting on it would be much less preferable, is there another solution I'm not seeing? Stopping the murder then let the man go? Come on.

You need to work on syntax. If I try to go by "what you mean" instead of "what you said" stuff gets really weird. Say what you mean. This is not the time to use creative license.

I don't trust people to use a system like that properly. The movie itself seems to hint at the very thing I would get @ anyway.

You mention alternative "punishment" but don't say what it is. Mind giving a few examples? I don't know what you mean. I do not know an applicable punishment for something I was about to do.

Originally posted by chithappens
You need to work on syntax. If I try to go by "what you mean" instead of "what you said" stuff gets really weird. Say what you mean. This is not the time to use creative license.

I don't trust people to use a system like that properly. The movie itself seems to hint at the very thing I would get @ anyway.

You mention alternative "punishment" but don't say what it is. Mind giving a few examples? I don't know what you mean. I do not know an applicable punishment for something I was about to do.

If you are stopped from committing a murder just seconds before you commit it you could still be charged with attempted murder. You were just stopped by the cops before you could succeed.

Letting somebody go just because you stopped them before it happened isn't good enough, it let's people try and try time after time again. In some cases like passion killing you could let the person go, preferably with some kind of professional help. But if that was not the case, or if somebody would be stopped more then once letting them go time after time again is just a waste of time and money.

Funny, it was not the time to use a creative license when what I meant was painfully obvious yet you are quick to say the system would be corrupted without knowing how it would really work.

I also do not know what applicable punishments would be for each crime, deciding that would take a lot of research from people with expertise on the area. I am just saying the government should indeed stop the people who would commit the crimes and ensure that they will not go through with them.

'Its just predestination, you'd catach a ball rolling towards the edge of the table based on your guess that it will fall'

Quoted from that film and i feel some up the arguement of punishing people before they commit crime.

Originally posted by Eis
Funny, it was not the time to use a creative license when what I meant was painfully obvious yet you are quick to say the system would be corrupted without knowing how it would really work.

I also do not know what applicable punishments would be for each crime, deciding that would take a lot of research from people with expertise on the area. I am just saying the government should indeed stop the people who would commit the crimes and ensure that they will not go through with them.

Dude, that was not painfully obvious. You might have believed it as you said it. Stop being a prick about it. Just say what you mean.

It doesn't matter how the system works. Notice I mentioned people, the individual. I never said there was a flaw in the system. People lie. I don't trust those in power. Never will. Their family could be at risk unless someone gets my head. It could happen now. The system could be perfect. The individual behind the screen and those who run the government will never be.

Originally posted by Fishy
But if that was not the case, or if somebody would be stopped more then once letting them go time after time again is just a waste of time and money.

And how would you handle this?

Originally posted by chithappens
And how would you handle this?

Charge every one with attempted murder, get a professional opinion on the mental ability of the patient and figure out why he or she wanted to kill the other person. All those things together you can make an analysis based on how likely it is to happen again. If very likely then long time in jail with professional help trying to cure the person.

If only a small chance then a small time in jail professional help, (must be traumatizing to almost kill somebody) and get them back in society. If however a person would upon his or her return would try to commit another murder the punishment should be harder. And life in prison would be a very reasonable punishment.

The only problem here is still that you are punishing somebody that didn't commit a crime, but attempted murder in some cases should just be enough.

Originally posted by Eis
I suppose the answer to your question would be that he is imprisoned for us having hard proof that he indeed would have committed a murder.

If we begin to punish others for things that they will do, where do we draw the line? Do we then punish others for things that they may do, for things they think about doing, for things they want to do?

Thanks for saying it. If I did it would be spread as propaganda LOL

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If we begin to punish others for things that they will do, where do we draw the line? Do we then punish others for things that they may do, for things they think about doing, for things they want to do?
It's a rather big leap from what I am suggesting to a thought police. The line is perfectly clear, the government would only take in to custody people that would absolutely commit the crime. What you are saying is like when conservatives say "gay marriage? what's next man-animal marriages? Nooo!". Besides, it would take a complete different technology to monitor people's thoughts and desires.

Originally posted by Eis
It's a rather big leap from what I am suggesting to a thought police. The line is perfectly clear, the government would only take in to custody people that would absolutely commit the crime. What you are saying is like when conservatives say "gay marriage? what's next man-animal marriages? Nooo!". Besides, it would take a complete different technology to monitor people's thoughts and desires.

You are advocating preventing crime by punishing crimes before they happen.

My question to you is, "If you begin to punish crimes before they happen, at what point is it acceptable to punish a crime before it happens? The moment before one attempts the crime? The moment one conceives of attempting the crime? The moment one considers attempting the crime? The moment one desires to attempt the crime?"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are advocating preventing crime by punishing crimes before they happen.

My question to you is, "If you begin to punish crimes before they happen, at what point is it acceptable to punish a crime before it happens? The moment before one attempts the crime? The moment one conceives of attempting the crime? The moment one considers attempting the crime? The moment one desires to attempt the crime?"
I suppose maybe a day before they commit the crime, I don't know it would depend on how the technology that tells us who is going to commit the crime works.

Originally posted by Eis
I suppose maybe a day before they commit the crime, I don't know it would depend on how the technology that tells us who is going to commit the crime works.

Surely, the sooner we prevent a crime the better; why not the moment before one considers committing a crime?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Surely, the sooner we prevent a crime the better; why not the moment before one considers committing a crime?
Why? It doesn't really make any difference to anyone other than the attacker (would-be attacker to avoid any nuisances)
I don't see how anyone would benefit by apprehending the man so early.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Surely, the sooner we prevent a crime the better; why not the moment before one considers committing a crime?

Thinking of the crime and actually being ready to shoot somebody are two completely different things. A lot of people thought about killing somebody some day and never actually did it.

Originally posted by Eis
Why?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Surely, the sooner we prevent a crime the better . . .




Originally posted by Fishy
Thinking of the crime and actually being ready to shoot somebody are two completely different things. A lot of people thought about killing somebody some day and never actually did it.

The difference is that we know that he will do it.

Uh...
Originally posted by Eis
Why?
As Fishy said there's a difference between thinking of a crime and actually be ready to go through with it. Whether we know if he'd do it in the future is irrelevant, I don't see a reason to apprehend the man so early. "surely the sooner we prevent a crime the better . . ." is not an answer.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that we know that he will do it.

Even if that is true that makes no difference. You arrest somebody just because of a vision something had, the person has no idea he or she is going to commit the crime and will not be able to do anything else until the very moment he or she kills somebody. Besides imagine how insane you would go if you are punished for a murder that you didn't even think of yet and can't even imagine doing??

Originally posted by Eis
As Fishy said there's a difference between thinking of a crime and actually be ready to go through with it. Whether we know if he'd do it in the future is irrelevant, I don't see a reason to apprehend the man so early. "surely the sooner we prevent a crime the better . . ." is not an answer.

That we know he will commit a crime in the future is absolutely relevant; it is the entire premise for punishing someone for a crime he has not yet committed.




Originally posted by Fishy
Even if that is true that makes no difference. You arrest somebody just because of a vision something had, the person has no idea he or she is going to commit the crime and will not be able to do anything else until the very moment he or she kills somebody. Besides imagine how insane you would go if you are punished for a murder that you didn't even think of yet and can't even imagine doing??

Which suggests that there is something inherently wrong with the seemingly plausible scenario of punishing crimes before they have been committed.

Yes, we know he will commit a crime unless stopped, now why are you saying it would be better to apprehend the man as soon as we get the information. That is the question you have yet to answer.

Originally posted by Eis
Yes, we know he will commit a crime unless stopped, now why are you saying it would be better to apprehend the man as soon as we get the information. That is the question you have yet to answer.

The sooner you act, the greater the chance you will be able to prevent the crime.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The sooner you act, the greater the chance you will be able to prevent the crime.
I highly doubt the government would have trouble tracking down a civilian that is not on the run and has not yet any motive to be. Besides it would be quite simple to protect the "would-be" homicide victim, thus potentially preventing the crime from happening.

Originally posted by Eis
I highly doubt the government would have trouble tracking down a civilian that is not on the run and has not yet any motive to be. Besides it would be quite simple to protect the "would-be" homicide victim, thus potentially preventing the crime from happening.

You cannot possibly know that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You cannot possibly know that.
I am assuming you are referring to the second part of my post. Please explain to me how it wouldn't be simple. The government has either records or means to get the following info of all its citizens, their addresses, places of work, phone numbers, etc. If they know one of their citizens is in danger, keeping in mind those resources of them, it just seems illogical it would take that much work to protect him or her. I am sure there could be complications in some cases but if we generalize, it really does seem simple to me.

Originally posted by Eis
I am assuming you are referring to the second part of my post. Please explain to me how it wouldn't be simple. The government has either records or means to get the following info of all its citizens, their addresses, places of work, phone numbers, etc. If they know one of their citizens is in danger, keeping in mind those resources of them, it just seems illogical it would take that much work to protect him or her. I am sure there could be complications in some cases but if we generalize, it really does seem simple to me.

Explain to me why a crime should be prevented "maybe a day before" as you propose instead of the moment one learns of the crime.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Explain to me why a crime should be prevented "maybe a day before" as you propose instead of the moment one learns of the crime.
Because the man doesn't have any intention to kill anybody. He is not, by general standards, yet a "bad" person. When he is ready to go out and shoot another person is when he is truly gone "bad". Seems fitting to me that it should also be the time he should be apprehended.

Originally posted by Eis
Because the man doesn't have any intention to kill anybody. He is not, by general standards, yet a "bad" person. When he is ready to go out and shoot another person is when he is truly gone "bad". Seems fitting to me that it should also be the time he should be apprehended.


You once argued there is no such thing as good or bad. Did you change your stance recently ?

Originally posted by Eis
Because the man doesn't have any intention to kill anybody. He is not, by general standards, yet a "bad" person. When he is ready to go out and shoot another person is when he is truly gone "bad". Seems fitting to me that it should also be the time he should be apprehended.

The man has yet to kill anybody. He is not, by general standards, yet a "bad" person. Why, therefore, should he he be apprehended?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You once argued there is no such thing as good or bad. Did you change your stance recently ?
...
Read the post carefully you tool.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The man has yet to kill anybody. He is not, by general standards, yet a "bad" person. Why, therefore, should he he be apprehended?
A man who is ready to go out and shoot a person and certainly would if it weren't for the government stopping him is indeed a person that by general standards one would say is "bad".

1st: We already charge people for attempted murder, rape, etc.

2nd: At what point before the crime is supposed to happen it is stopped is highly unimportant as long as the supposed victim does not get harmed.

3rd: You can surely not charge a person that might have murdered someone with murder. But you have to protect the possible victim. You might have to charge the would be attacker with attempted murder or a similar new crime, though of course you can not keep them locked for years for something they haven't done. Going by the movie it would mostly be crimes of passion anyways, meaning once the crime is prevented there would not be anymore harm done by the possible attacker.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1st: We already charge people for attempted murder, rape, etc.



I hate dat bro.