Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The sooner you act, the greater the chance you will be able to prevent the crime.
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
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.