Gaze
Donor
- MBTI
- INFPishy
And lets just throw this into the mix for fun
And lets just throw this into the mix for fun
It would never be justified. Until someone commits a crime they are innocent of said crime. And it would be terrifying to think of someone misusing that power, how easy it would be to lie about someone and arrest them for reasons other then are being said. Like political offenders.
such as not stepping in to prevent a crime, in the case of the sibling who knew about the spouse's intent to kill in @TheLastMohican 's scenario,? Which maybe then brings me back to the original point, which is is that, in the precrime based on precog possible world, where we can know ahead of time whether someone will, not just likely or probably, commit a crime, isn't it a worse crime to not do anything to try to prevent it from happening?
Precognition would simply add a layer of information to be taken into consideration. I’m going to have to say that it would be best used as an investigative tool to find the evidence of willful action or inaction, but obviously could not be considered the evidence itself.
Yes I agree that willful inaction is a crime, but precognition is not evidence just as cognition is not evidence.
This is an important point to bring up. Pre-crime is based on the idea that the future is determined. Can we be sure of that? In other words, is pre-cog true and always true? If the future cannot truly be predicted and without 100% accuracy and consistency, automatic guilt is unjustified.I don't think this would be justified. Innocent until proven guilty and you can't prove guilt without evidence and a crime. All you have to go on is the word of a psychic? Did that Miss Cleo mess teach us something about psychics?
And lets just throw this into the mix for fun
hmm . . . but precognition or seeing ahead of time implies that something has happened and there's evidence or proof to confirm that a crime will have been committed, right? So, it's technically evidence of future existing evidence . . . isn't it?
However, this is all nonsensical because if it was known with absolute accuracy that the crime would be committed then it would not be possible to stop it. If you could stop it, then the absolute accuracy of the prediction would be thrown to the wind.
Yes. With pre-cog, a person is basically guilty at the instant of birth. In fact, before they are born. We can even go further than that, pre-criminals became guilty when the universe came into existence. Determinism.What I wonder is how could we as humans, the way we think and feel today, deal with being punished for a crime we technically haven't committed, but would without a doubt commit in the future? I wonder what it would do to our egos and self-views. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be imprisoned for any long period of time knowing that you are guilty of a crime, much less knowing that your future self's crime now has you, at the time being an innocent person, locked up for an extended period. Would we be able to deal with it?
Yeah, they're basically guilty, but I wonder what type of psychological effects it would have on a person to be punished before ever actually committing a crime. Would it be "harder" on this person arrested on pre-cog than it would be on someone who actually committed a crime?Yes. With pre-cog, a person is basically guilty at the instant of birth. In fact, before they are born. We can even go further than that, pre-criminals became guilty when the universe came into existence. Determinism.
So where would they draw the line on prosecuting people for crimes, because I'm sure everyone at some point would commit a crime. Would this pre-cog thing be only used for serious crimes like murder/rape, or would shoplifters also be prosecuted? If not, would shoplifting essentially stop being a crime?
If we are assuming that there is the means to determine with absolute accuracy that a crime will be committed in the future, then I think that measures taken to intervene would be justified.
The assumption that with absolute accuracy future events can be known leads to a sense that the linear aspect of time has dissolved to some degree. So, the argument that the crime has not yet occurred is irrelevant. Normal time lines are no longer in play. For all intents and purposes, the crime has occurred.
However, this is all nonsensical because if it was known with absolute accuracy that the crime would be committed then it would not be possible to stop it. If you could stop it, then the absolute accuracy of the prediction would be thrown to the wind.
And Minority Report was shit compared to it's far more superior predecessor, Blade Runner.