Poll: Precrime: Yes or No?

[The_Vigilant]

If you haven't seen Minority Report and you're concerned with the possibility of spoilers, stop reading.

I just finished watching the movie for the 17th time and, concurrent with my last sixteen viewings, I was struck with how good of a frame "precrime" is for a discussion of ends and means.

And so I'd like to ask, would you support precrime - EXACTLY as the movie presented it? It's a nearly infallible system, with the exception of minority reports and people exploiting "echoes," that has the potential to utterly eradicate murder. On the downside, a woman WAS murdered and her children effectively appropriated by the state to set the vehicle in motion. Furthermore, the perpetrators apprehended by precrime agents are incarcerated for life in a comatose state with no trial or opportunity for personal defense, having committed no actual crime except that of intent, as told by a third party, albeit, a reliable one.

Me? I support precrime even with its failings. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a precognitive, and I wouldn't want my children kidnapped to serve that purpose. I also wouldn't want to be one of those few who might have been "falsely" convicted. However, despite my deep feelings of principle regarding individual liberties and trial by jury, there comes a point where the weight of statistics can silence my protests.

Where do you stand, utilitarianism or liberty?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I don't. I mean, I've wanted to murder people before, but restrained myself.

Don't remember exactly how it works in the movie, but what if I want to shoot someone, restrain myself (possibly firing it in the air a lot while going ARRR!) and then they show up to arrest me, that would be bullshit.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

Nope. In my opinion, precrime wouldn't be worth the hit that liberty would take. As the end shows, the murders don't always happen as predicted- which means that there would be innocent people being incarcerated. For life. Without a trial. It's that lack of a trial that really irks me- there's literally no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was to commit a murder if they never actually did it. That does not mean the solution is to skip the trial. It means that the system is flawed.

Sure, murders had been stopped by precrime in the movie. But the existence of the titular Minority Report means that the prediction isn't always 100% correct. And the fact that the "echoes" are so easily exploited is a giant red flag.

Personally, I think I'd try to find a happy medium. Have people volunteer to be precogs, and then use the precrime reports to focus an investigation rather than serve as the be-all, end-all. Watch the person who would commit the crime, and stop them before they actually do it, but don't arrest someone who hasn't done a thing yet. Make sure that they are going to do it, and then charge them with attempted murder.

 

[Esotera]

No. Is there a stated error rate for murders? It's not a crime until you have committed it. It would make much more sense for society to rehabilitate at risk individuals (anger management, change of job so they don't kill their boss, etc). An early warning tool would be better than imprisonment for a crime they haven't committed.

 

[BlackStar42]

You have to judge people by what they've done, not what you think they might do.

 

[brunothepig]

Nope. In my opinion, precrime wouldn't be worth the hit that liberty would take. As the end shows, the murders don't always happen as predicted- which means that there would be innocent people being incarcerated. For life. Without a trial. It's that lack of a trial that really irks me- there's literally no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was to commit a murder if they never actually did it. That does not mean the solution is to skip the trial. It means that the system is flawed.

Sure, murders had been stopped by precrime in the movie. But the existence of the titular Minority Report means that the prediction isn't always 100% correct. And the fact that the "echoes" are so easily exploited is a giant red flag.

Personally, I think I'd try to find a happy medium. Have people volunteer to be precogs, and then use the precrime reports to focus an investigation rather than serve as the be-all, end-all. Watch the person who would commit the crime, and stop them before they actually do it, but don't arrest someone who hasn't done a thing yet. Make sure that they are going to do it, and then charge them with attempted murder.

What he said. Although I'm still not sure why attempted murder has a less severe penalty than murder. So basically, set up a precog team like Squirrel said, track potential murderers, stop them before they shoot and charge them with attempted murder, but have it carry the same penalty as murder.

 

[The_Vigilant]

I don't. I mean, I've wanted to murder people before, but restrained myself.

Don't remember exactly how it works in the movie, but what if I want to shoot someone, restrain myself (possibly firing it in the air a lot while going ARRR!) and then they show up to arrest me, that would be bullshit.

Nah, they addressed that pretty specifically in the movie. They said that those feelings won't trigger it, only the absolute intention.

And as far as the actual numbers go, it's only a question of "false positives," which they mentioned. As the movie presented it, in the 6 years of Precrime's existence in D.C, not single murder occurred (and anyone who knows anything about D.C. will tell you that's not trivial).

And as far as the false positives go, it was implied that number was quite small. And even when a minority report did occur, it didn't necessarily mean that the murder WOULDN'T happen either. It just meant that the murder wasn't the only possibility. Additionally, the movie said that since the inception of Precrime, premeditated murders all but disappeared, leaving only reactionary murders which are frequently stopped IN THE ACT because the precognition is generated late. So, as I understand the collective evidence, Precrime is nearly 100% effective. If I had to give a number just to encourage salient debate rather than qualms about type II error, I'd say 99% accurate with 1% room for false positives. And that's generous. It's probably less.

Our courts on the other hand, probably convict more innocent people than that and acquit more guilty. And I'm in law school so I'm a person who believes in the system. What I'm saying is the "damage to liberty" is likely equal either way, it's just we feel better if it happened because of a trial rather than psychic sorcery.

The way I see the math is this:

Same number of false convictions in both systems.
Fewer false acquittals under precrime.
Countless lives saved with precrime intervention.

Precrime's only downside is the pang of conscience that goes with it: acceptance of the false positives and the damage done to four lives to create it.

 

[stefanbertramlee]

You can't punish someone for a crime they did not commit, so no.

 

[comadorcrack]

Imma take some middle ground here...

How about instead of arresting them on the spot, we send in action therapists! How awesome would that be!? A guy is about to murder up his wife and then BAM! in flies the negotiator who calms that shit down! A much better solution! And it gives all those psychology majors something to actually do with their education!!

 

[WolfThomas]

It was the whole held in stasis indefinitely thing that put me off, I mean in a lot of countries if you kill someone (particularly in the heat of the moment) you do eventually get released and are hopefully rehabilated, though many might argue how sucessful that system is. So with pre-crime they're pretty much giving full life sentences for stuff that doesn't happen.

If pre-crime was used to prevent the murder and then the scenario was assessed and either imprisonment (not indefinite) or pschiatric intervention was utilized I'd be a lot more happier with their intervention. For repeat offenders the punishment would be more severe.

But take the guy at the start of the film, who thought his wife was cheating on him (can't remember if she actually was). He shouldn't get life without parole, he should definitely be removed from his wife under a restraining order and have counselig, medication and assessment of his risk.

 

[The_Vigilant]

You can't punish someone for a crime they did not commit, so no.

I'd be interested to see if this opinion is shared by someone who has actually lost a family member to murder.

I'm genuinely surprised here. I can't believe so many people would trade thousands of lives for principle. Our status quo does so little to actually prevent violent crime and you're offered a complete lockdown on murder at the cost of a few false positives and NOBODY bites. Interesting.

Imma take some middle ground here...

How about instead of arresting them on the spot, we send in action therapists! How awesome would that be!? A guy is about to murder up his wife and then BAM! in flies the negotiator who calms that shit down! A much better solution! And it gives all those psychology majors something to actually do with their education!!

Awesome.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Put it this way. If the Police showed up on your doorstep telling you that youre under arrest for the Future Crime of someone, which they have deducted from the rambling of a bunch of psychic orphans theyve hooked up to their computers, would you just accept that and go quietly?

In all likelyhood, Police shootings will go up since people who have done nothing wrong are being imprisoned without trail, and frozen indefinately (which, after seeing the movie demolition man, I maintain isnt a real punishment, and is disingenuous of the entire idea of prison). People arent going to take this shit lying down. Theyll be riots in the street, murder will rise due to this, to the point where the police cant even keep up. Society will fall into a goverment vs the people regime. Eventually these tripelets will be killed/ go missing, and society will rebuild itself.

 

[manythings]

-snip-

There was a great article on something (cracked.com I think) basically about how they predicted things wrong again and again and it was only the fact that people were covering it up that made precrime work.

OT: No, attempting to predict the future is retarded. It's impossible. An even a 99.999999% probability means jack if the 0.000001% occurs.

 

[Ghengis John]

You can't punish someone for a crime they did not commit, so no.

I'd be interested to see if this opinion is shared by someone who has actually lost a family member to murder.

I'm genuinely surprised here. I can't believe so many people would trade thousands of lives for principle. Our status quo does so little to actually prevent violent crime and you're offered a complete lockdown on murder at the cost of a few false positives and NOBODY bites. Interesting.

The minute you're locked up for a crime you didn't commit let's see where your support goes. I would never wish to find myself in that scenario or for that matter one of my loved ones. If someone in my family were taken out of my life because someone insisted they'd commit a crime they never did I'd think it a horrible act of injustice. So no, a few false positives is a few too many when we're talking about someone you care about and as real a loss as a death. And I'm sure everyone would be convinced they're one of those false positives. For that matter any system that allows you to cart innocent people off to jail without the burden of proof seems rife for abuse.

 

[King Toasty]

No, attempting to predict the future is retarded. It's impossible an even a 99.999999% probability means jack if the 0.000001% occurs.

Thus, the 99% Paradox. Cory Doctorow explains it well.

Let's say you have a 99% accuracy rate in airport security. Now let's say that 10,000 people come in in a day- very likely for even a medium-sized airport. What's 1% of 10,000? 100. You're taking in 100 likely innocent people every day. But wait! How many people go though Denver International? In 2008, 51,245,334 people. Holy shit. And 1% of that: 512,453 innocent people. Hell, even a 0.1% accuracy gets you 51,245 arrested.

That's why I disagree with ramping up airport security. It's illogical to take out 51,245 people, put them under questioning, and analyze every answer, to have a minute chance of maybe possibly catching an unlikely-to-exist terrorist.

 

[manythings]

No, attempting to predict the future is retarded. It's impossible an even a 99.999999% probability means jack if the 0.000001% occurs.

Thus, the 99% Paradox. Cory Doctorow explains it well.

Let's say you have a 99% accuracy rate in airport security. Now let's say that 10,000 people come in in a day- very likely for even a medium-sized airport. What's 1% of 10,000? 100. You're taking in 100 likely innocent people every day. But wait! How many people go though Denver International? In 2008, 51,245,334 people. Holy shit. And 1% of that: 512,453 innocent people. Hell, even a 0.1% accuracy gets you 51,245 arrested.

That's why I disagree with ramping up airport security. It's illogical to take out 51,245 people, put them under questioning, and analyze every answer, to have a minute chance of maybe possibly catching an unlikely-to-exist terrorist.

It gets even more ridiculous when you tae into account the reason a lot of people are questioned. My dad hadn't been given back his boarding pass so he basically had to run way back, get it and run to the plane which was literally minutes from leaving. He was taken in for questioning because it was suspicious that a man would run to catch his plane.

 

[King Toasty]

No, attempting to predict the future is retarded. It's impossible an even a 99.999999% probability means jack if the 0.000001% occurs.

Thus, the 99% Paradox. Cory Doctorow explains it well.

Let's say you have a 99% accuracy rate in airport security. Now let's say that 10,000 people come in in a day- very likely for even a medium-sized airport. What's 1% of 10,000? 100. You're taking in 100 likely innocent people every day. But wait! How many people go though Denver International? In 2008, 51,245,334 people. Holy shit. And 1% of that: 512,453 innocent people. Hell, even a 0.1% accuracy gets you 51,245 arrested.

That's why I disagree with ramping up airport security. It's illogical to take out 51,245 people, put them under questioning, and analyze every answer, to have a minute chance of maybe possibly catching an unlikely-to-exist terrorist.

It gets even more ridiculous when you tae into account the reason a lot of people are questioned. My dad hadn't been given back his boarding pass so he basically had to run way back, get it and run to the plane which was literally minutes from leaving. He was taken in for questioning because it was suspicious that a man would run to catch his plane.

I'm in Canada, so we don't get it quite as bad. But visiting the States, there was this one guy who ran to catch his plane- poor guy was late -and was stopped by security. They patted him down, he complained because he was missing his flight. So they took him to that interrogation room. He came out half an hour later and never got his luggage back.

 

[Terminate421]

Though their methods are odd. I wouldn't want to be charged with murder without even doing anything.

By the way, great movie.

 

[conmag9]

With the success rate they had? Absolutely.

But what's this? Innocent people are being incarcerated on a very low percentage! Why, it's not at all like our current justice system where the guilty are ALWAYS convicted and the innocent are ALWAYS let free! Oh wait...

Either method has a risk of accidental incarceration. The precrime system actually seems LESS likely than traditional methods of investigation. And it's better in that it stops the crime from happening, rather than just punishing it after the fact.

"Sorry Mr. Example, we totally knew we could have saved your wife, but it wouldn't have been right to arrest the guy for something he was only about to do". If that were said to me, they'd have to send in a second team for murder, at which point I would say the exact same thing to them.

 

[Cazza]

I would be okay with the arresting but the punishment is retarded. Forced angry management classes etc would be better.