Zennie 0 #1 July 15, 2004 What if... The "Minority Report" scenario really existed? What if we could have a Department of Pre-Crime, whose purpose is to detect murders BEFORE they occur, so that the pre-perpetrator can be arrested and detained before the murder actually occurred? What if a safety mechanism was built in, such that any disagreement between the three clairvoyants would result in a "minority report", and no preventative action would take place. Only if all three agree could a person be detained under the system. Naturally, murder would include acts of terrorism, so terrorism could effectively be eliminated, if not dramatically reduced? Wouldn't this be the ultimate tool necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, or any other sort of murder? Wouldn't our nation, heck, the world, be a much safer place with it than without it? So, whaddaya think? If such a department were possible, would you be in favor of, or opposed to it? - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #2 July 16, 2004 Isn't that kind of what happens when people are charged with "conspiracy to..." (insert crime here). It isn't something snazzy like the "precogs" but the system that we had in place found out about a crime before it happened, stopped it, and punished those who were going to commit the crime. As far as the poll goes, I voted NO, driven by a personal belief instilled in my by a Leo Buscaglia book (yeah I know, don't get started) in a high school ethics class: We can do anything we want to as long as we are willing to accept the consequences of our actions. OR, to put it another way: I should have the right to commit a crime (any crime), as long as I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions. Discuss. Elvisio "ready for a flaming" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goalie35 0 #3 July 16, 2004 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" Sorry, violates the Fourth Amendment, got to go. Barmy SCOTUS decisions to the contrary notwithstanding, prior restraint is one of the things the founders of this nation wanted to protect us against. In the final analysis, if you can justify any sort of invasion of privacy, you can justify them all. It's sort of like doing urine tests on certain occupations, on the grounds that you MIGHT prevent a loss of life. My response to this was, "Okay, but you won't catch them all with just a few spots urine tests; why don't you just conduct random searches of their cars, homes and other property? That way, you'll catch a lot more bad guys and save even more people!" Invading a person's mind just takes this idea to the final degree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #4 July 16, 2004 Absolutely fuckin' NOT. The idea of being charged, tried, and convicted for something you have not yet done is abhorrent to me, and should be abhorrent to anyone who cares one iota about freedom. Besides, I couldn't figure out in Minority Report why they didn't FREE people once they had prevented the murder! The crime was never committed, and the time when it would have taken place has passed. Therefore there is no problem. Convicting them as though they DID commit the murder is wrong. How is it different from convicting someone for even once for a single moment considering murder but not going through with it? If the Pre-Crime squad comes in, stops the guy from leaving his house with the murder weapon (if there even needs to be a weapon), and the murder is not committed, and the pre-criminal comes out of his murderous feelings, apologizes, etc. and no longer feels the desire to do the murder (which may have been heat-of-the-moment and not the result of a premeditation) why should he be imprisoned?! The premise is an abomination. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #5 July 16, 2004 QuoteI couldn't figure out in Minority Report why they didn't FREE people once they had prevented the murder! I was wondering the same thing when I saw it. The sequence of events has passed, murder didn't happen. If he was gonna do it again, the precogs would catch it and he'd just be "detained" all over again. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #6 July 16, 2004 Maybe the future is overwhelmingly liberal, where they believe in punishing people before they can even do wrong -- just like they believe in keeping you from having guns just so you can't possibly use one to shoot somebody. -- which makes as much sense as banning cars so that people can't drive drunk. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #7 July 16, 2004 >Maybe the future is overwhelmingly liberal, where they believe in > punishing people before they can even do wrong . . . Hmm. Unless you believe Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are "overwhelmingly liberal" I don't think you've got much of a case there. Arrests in which people are held forever without a trial in case they might be terrorists (and might someday blow something up) are a relatively new thing. The whole doctrine of pre-emption comes from one of the more conservative administrations we've seen in a while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #8 July 16, 2004 QuoteArrests in which people are held forever without a trial... Perhaps you mean indefinitely? Coincidentally, to say they are being held forever without a trial assumes that they will never be charged/tried/sentenced or released, which is an assumption of guilt on the part of the US government for an act which cannot yet have taken place. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #9 July 16, 2004 QuoteI should have the right to commit a crime (any crime), as long as I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions. Discuss. OK. I remember watching a documentary about an undercover police operation to catch pedophiles. On one of the videotapes, two men are discussing a particular boy that they have been tracking. One of the men makes the point that when they kill the boy he wants to be able to look into his eyes. (Apparently, that was his motivation. Sick fucker.) The men were arrested and charged with conspiracy to abduct and murder the boy. The notion that these men had the right to first murder the boy then suffer the consequences is naive and irresponsible. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 July 16, 2004 QuoteIsn't that kind of what happens when people are charged with "conspiracy to..." (insert crime here). Not really. Zennie is proposing that they are caught and punished even before they may have even formed the thought to commit the crime. Or when it's predicted that a crime of passion may occur. Conspiracy IS a crime in itself that requires the fundamental parts of a crime: motive, intent, and opportunity. Not only that, but it requires that more than one party is involved. Also, it's notoriously hard to prove, it's usually tacked on AFTER the crime is commited to increase the penalty. It's a rare thing for someone to be convicted of conspiracy for a crime that never took place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #11 July 16, 2004 I think he meant "attempted (insert crime here), rather than conspiracy to commit. He was trying to talk about inchoate offenses.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
