Pre-Crime

[Arsal]

For the fear of being redundant...

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.

This, basically.

 

[Gaze]

would love to hear more views or alternate perspectives on this such as all possible worlds theory, or alternate timelines, but of course in a fictional context.

 

[TaylorS]

Absolutely not. Punishment is only right for ACTIONS, not for thoughts.

 

[uuu]

Assuming we can accurately tell people's intentions, it could make sense to punish people, or at least restrain them, before they commit crime. The priority of the police is not to make arrests, but to prevent crime from happening in the first place.
However, if we learn of a crime that someone will commit years from now, there's no reason to lock them up right away. Wait until the crime time is closer, and then retest. Perhaps they will have changed their mind by then.