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.
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 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?
Re: Minority Report
Originally posted by Storm
[b]Precrime
Precrime is a system that has replaced the previous system of discovering a crime and its perpetrator after it had been committed, with imprisonment before the crime takes place to prevent it happening.How the system works
The system of predicting the future in reports is carried out by three mutants, called 'precogs', all of whom have the capacity to see up to two weeks into the future. Precogs are created by identifying the talent within a "subject" and cultivating it in a government-operated training. The precogs sit in a room which is perpetually in half-darkness, constantly talking nonsense to themselves that is incoherent until it is analysed by a computer into predictions of the future. This information is assembled by the computer into the form of symbols before being transcribed onto conventional punchcards which are ejected into various coded slots. When cards are produced, they appear simultaneously at Precrime and the Army GHQ, in order to prevent corruption. The precogs are kept in rigid position by metal bands, clamps and wiring, which keep them attached to special high-backed chairs. Their physical needs are taken care of automatically and it is said that they have no spiritual needs.A minority report
The system of three precogs finds its genesis in the computers of the middle decades of the 21st Century. The results of a computer are checked by feeding the data to a second computer of identical design but two computers are not sufficient. If each computer arrived at a different answer it is impossible to tell a priori which is correct. The solution, based on a careful study of statistical method, is to utilize a third computer to check the results of the first two. In this manner, a so-called majority report is obtained. It can be assumed that the agreement of two out of three computers indicates which of the alternative results is accurate — it would not be likely that two computers would arrive at identically incorrect solutions. It is much more common to obtain a collaborative majority report of two precogs, plus a minority report of some slight variation, usually with reference to time and place, from the third mutant. This is explained by the theory of multiple-futures. If only one time-path existed, precognitive information would be of no importance since no possibility would exist, in possessing this information, of altering the future.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? [/B]
It was a good movie to say the least.
However I wouldn't agree with the system because it presumes the evil and denies the choice. Another flaw would be some murders may never have happened had they not been predicted. The system also offers a very obscure vision of the future and doesn't allow for the understanding of the entire situation. Not to sound cynical but if one man murdered another man in self-defense (not an act that is considered against the law and therefore deserves no punishment) and kills a man who would have been caught meditating murder, than the system could have spared itself by killing two birds with one stone: Let the first guy live and deal with the actual murderer. Because if the system did work, than it would imprison the innocent man AND the guilty man, and that is not justice.
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?
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?"
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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?
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.
Originally posted by Adam_Poe
...the sooner we prevent a crime the better . . .
Originally posted by Eis
Why?
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.
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 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.