[itachi-san]

In the film Minority Report there are creatures who can see the future, so let's just assume that they can do it flawlessly for this discussion. They work for the law enforcement in order to arrest people for crimes they are about to commit. For instance, if a man decided to kill his wife later in the night, he would be arrested now before he did it and get charged with the crime. But that's the trick. He didn't commit the crime, nor will he now that he has been arrested, but he is being charged for it. This doesn't seem fair, but if they left him alone he definitely would commit the crime. Can you make this concept sound fair then?

Edited June 13, 2008 by itachi-san

[Guest]

easy 2 me go in w/ a search warrent search 4 evidence if none there dont arrest if evidence there arest. so now ppl no uncle sams looking over their shoulder so no more problem!

[Guest]

ARREST THE GUY UNTIL THE GIVEN TIME OF MURDER THEN RELEASE HIM (THAT WAS A GOOD MOVIE )

[Guest]

Simple!

Go to the guy's house informing him that they know when and where he will commit a crime, and that if he does they will be ready for him. This way the criminal will know not to do it.

[Guest]

Simple!

Go to the guy's house informing him that they know when and where he will commit a crime, and that if he does they will be ready for him. This way the criminal will know not to do it.

[itachi-san]

easy 2 me go in w/ a search warrent search 4 evidence if none there dont arrest if evidence there arest. so now ppl no uncle sams looking over their shoulder so no more problem!

But then you wouldn't have evidence for the crime of which the suspect would be convicted, only conspiracy or unlawful possessions.

ARREST THE GUY UNTIL THE GIVEN TIME OF MURDER THEN RELEASE HIM

You're just reducing the amount of time the man is arrested for. Instead of say 20 years, he gets a few hours. Sure, a few hours is better for him, but reducing an inconsequential variable's value won't solve anything. You need to address the logic behind the arrest, not the terms of the arrest.

Simple!

Go to the guy's house informing him that they know when and where he will commit a crime, and that if he does they will be ready for him. This way the criminal will know not to do it.

Maybe it's not that simple after all The OP states that if the future perpetrator is not arrested, then he will definitely commit the crime. So, telling him all this information will not prevent his actions. Then, once the crime is in progress and he is arrested, that's what our real/current law enforcement does anyway and has nothing to do with this idea.

All in all, some good thoughts. Let's see if we can expound a little though. The logic is that knowing a suspect will commit a crime later, they now arrest and convict the suspect of the crime he hadn't yet committed. So basically, is this process logical knowing that the future visions of crimes are indeed true?

[Guest]

What about all that stuff where if you change the future then we all inplode or something. What if the psy-chicks were simply being opinionated like a jury. What if the future cops had to travel into the future to stop a crime, or better yet the psy-chicks could only predict a crime a year or more into the future. If you had a reliable tool to predict crime, you would have to stop it. Especially as a government orginization. Why was Tom Cruise allowed to make a choice but not the ones he arrested? If you are told you are going to commit a crime and then are given the opportunity not to do it, then what? I guess you would just keep trying because that would mean you are capable of murder. Police today arrest people on the simple fact of them being capable to commit a crime.

[Guest]

Assumming that the creatures see the future flawlessly then although the murder had not yet been committed, because murder was on the suspects heart, there is enough cause to arrest them for consiracy to commit murder. The sentense wouldn't be as long as a murder sentence but still into years rather than hours.

[kingofpain]

Two thoughts:

A) Assuming the 'flawless' part, all it would require for justifying the arrest is a change to the legislature which will definitely come before the executive branch (cops) start arresting people for crimes not committed. Arrest being a punishment for crimes committed is such a commonly accepted social procedure that we do not question it's motive. The motive is to be a deterrent to the crime to reduce future crimes in addition to being a form of punishment or even revenge by society. Apart from social acceptance, there is not much difference between arrest for crimes committed versus crimes that are definitely going to be committed.

B) Other way to look at this is that the flawless assumption is impossible since the arrest prevents the crime which by definition makes the future seeing powers flawed. But if it is assumed flawless in the sense of the movie where that is the future until the specific legal action of arrest is performed, then argument A above applies.

Cheers!

--

Vig

[Guest]

Arresting a man for a murder he would definitely commit in the future would be the same as arresting a man who had hired a hit man to kill his wife but the deal leaked out before the murder was committed. The man is still guilty of murder because he expected that it would be accomplished according to his desire.

I agree, just a change in legislature is needed.

However, and this is where it gets more tricky, is where crimes of passion or self-defense occur. The man who will commit the future murder has no idea up until tht point that they will become a murderer. And so in lies the paradox. If he does not intend nor even conceive of committing murder how can be chraged for a crime that he cannot foresee nor has any desire to commit?

[Guest]

There is no logical way to get them to pay for a crime that they have not committed...the most they could get charged with is attempt (if that). If someone walks in the store and "plans" to buy to something the merchant cant force them to pay before they have actually made the purchase just becuz the merchant knows they planned on buyin it. If the world were to become like that, the charge of murder technically would no longer exsist. (good movie tho :-))

[Guest]

Arresting a man for a murder he would definitely commit in the future would be the same as arresting a man who had hired a hit man to kill his wife but the deal leaked out before the murder was committed. The man is still guilty of murder because he expected that it would be accomplished according to his desire.

I agree, just a change in legislature is needed.

However, and this is where it gets more tricky, is where crimes of passion or self-defense occur. The man who will commit the future murder has no idea up until tht point that they will become a murderer. And so in lies the paradox. If he does not intend nor even conceive of committing murder how can be chraged for a crime that he cannot foresee nor has any desire to commit?

I don't agree they are the same thing. When someone conspires to commit murder they are breaking a law in itself. Also, at this point there would be evidence, a sting would have been set up, tape recordings. The act would have been committed. For the sake of the original post's idea, would it be okay to arrest someone BEFORE they even met with a hitman to set up a future murder? How could that stick?

JP

[Guest]

I agree with Austin CG. Just tell the criminal that they know of his/her plan to murder. Knowledge of the future alone, changes the future.

[Guest]

Would real time complete future surveillance, aka open source Big Brother, help this?

[Guest]

Well if they do it flawlessly, they shouldn't ARREST him, but prevent them from doing so! But that means they can't REALLY see the future... the only thing you REALLY CAN do is tell the wife they're going to die :/

and then catch the husband afterwards

[Guest]

if these creatures could truly tell the future flawlessly, would it not be impossible to arrest the man?

or else, if they could see the future, they would predict that the man would get arrested and that he wouldn't commit the crime

[Guest]

Destiny or Fate refers to a predetermined course of events. It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the universe.

So if the world we know it now is to change and become like it is in Minority Report does that mean the justice system (as in Minority Report) is interferring with fate or was it our fate that this change to the justice system was meant to happen. So the crime that didn't happen wasn't actually meant to happen. That the fate of the person who was meant to be murdered (as the precogs saw) wasn't meant to die.

Therefore, if you believe in fate or destiny then what happens is meant to happen.

What if the murder I am being arrested for is a murder that would only be committed because I was being arrested.

Okay, I am about to kill someone and the police arrive to arrest me for the pre-crime before I do it. I don't understand what I have done wrong and resist arrest and in the struggle I kill a policeman. Would this be seen by the precogs and hence would the pre-crime police come to arrest me for this crime or the original crime. (And how many times can this happen?)

[Guest]

In the film Minority Report there are creatures who can see the future, so let's just assume that they can do it flawlessly for this discussion. They work for the law enforcement in order to arrest people for crimes they are about to commit. For instance, if a man decided to kill his wife later in the night, he would be arrested now before he did it and get charged with the crime. But that's the trick. He didn't commit the crime, nor will he now that he has been arrested, but he is being charged for it. This doesn't seem fair, but if they left him alone he definitely would commit the crime. Can you make this concept sound fair then?

The creature becomes an eyewitness to the murder. If the creature is flawless, then it is entirely fair that the law intercedes based

on the eyewitness account of deed that happened in the future.

[Guest]

charge him of attemted murder.

or whatever crime the person was going to commit

[Guest]

If they saw him killing his wife, then prevented him from doing it, how is that flawless sight into the future?

However, unless you want to insinuate they can see what has a possibility of happening, that's a different situation.

Arrest the man, if he had plans to murder his wife, such a thing should be prevented.

Besides, if they could see into the future flawlessly, wouldn't they see themselves arresting the man, not him murdering his wife?

[Guest]

This is a very difficult paradox to solve. If this creatures see the futures and stop the murderer, then the murder will never happen, and the future was changed. I beleieve that this paradox is about the change of the future, not about the evidence and the judgement.

[Guest]

if they can see the future stop him when he is about to so they have hard evidence against him

[Guest]

if they can see the future stop him when he is about to so they have hard evidence against him

this could work, but what if the person decides to do it earlier? If they waited until they had complete evidence the victim might already be dead.

[Guest]

In the film Minority Report there are creatures who can see the future, so let's just assume that they can do it flawlessly for this discussion. They work for the law enforcement in order to arrest people for crimes they are about to commit. For instance, if a man decided to kill his wife later in the night, he would be arrested now before he did it and get charged with the crime. But that's the trick. He didn't commit the crime, nor will he now that he has been arrested, but he is being charged for it. This doesn't seem fair, but if they left him alone he definitely would commit the crime. Can you make this concept sound fair then?

This only takes into account the present future that the precogs see in the film. we forgot about human nature, some desire to do good, some evil. and what are the intentions of the one commiting the crime? do they really want to commit the crime? or is it a crime of passion or something similar, its a decent system, but no computer or future telling device can take into consideration the human element, something that we alone have, the ability to reason, to see right and wrong ect. its reminds me of the film iRobot. the robot saves will smith instead of the little girl drowning because of the survival rate. is that truly the right choice? even if it is, its a mistake by the robot, they didnt choose based on true thinking, just processing data. so back to my original point, no machine can be put to use for these future actions. for some, they might have the intentions to commit the crime before, others, do not. nor do they wish to. so this really is not a fair system as much as you try to reason on it.

(by the way, hi. this is my first post)

[Guest]

now i didnt read everything but if (s)he were to be stopped then (s)he might do it at a different time because they changed the POSSIBLE future (i say possible because they have an ability to change it) then nothing happened and (s)he will do it at a later date thus it is impossible to predict the future flawlessly

see...

[Guest]

i hope that wasnt to cofusing