Minority Report-style question!

[Bugz]

Based on the film/book: if you could 99.9% accurately see when and how a murder was going to be committed before it was actually committed - should you be able to charge that person with attempted murder, provided you stop them before the act is committed.

In theory - they haven't attempted the murder, but you know that if you don't stop them, they will commit murder.

So how do you go about it? Let them committ the murder & then be able to charge them with murder?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Personally; couldn't judge someone before they act wrongly, but would do something to stop it.

Same if you hear that someone is planning a bombing or some such.

Future evidence is a b*tch, but current evidence ofcourse can judge someone.

 

[Ch3tan]

You cannot judge someone with doubt, no matter how small.

Maybe preventative measures - counselling with the supposed murderer, "there is a chance you might do this, we want to make sure you do not", followed by that person being watched until they are no longer a risk?

 

[Ezteq]

this brings about another interesting question of what might have been if someone was not murdered, they may have invented a cure for cancer or they may bring about a disaster, if you were to change history the world as we know it would be different.

 

[old.Tohtori]

this brings about another interesting question of what might have been if someone was not murdered, they may have invented a cure for cancer or they may bring about a disaster, if you were to change history the world as we know it would be different.

Age old "kill hitler - screw the world" problem

 

[Ch3tan]

Actually considering what Ez raised, I think the best solution is to destroy the technology.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually considering what Ez raised, I think the best solution is to destroy the technology.

Good point.

The problematic thing is this;

You see a crime happening.
This prompts you stop the crime.
The crime never happened.
You didn't see the crime because it never happened.
You don't stop the crime.
You see the crime

 

[Ezteq]

it be one of them there whaddayacallems paradoxes

 

[kiliarien]

Good point.

The problematic thing is this;

You see a crime happening.
This prompts you stop the crime.
The crime never happened.
You didn't see the crime because it never happened.
You don't stop the crime.
You see the crime

Interesting thought that.

Does this though suggest time travel to stop an action from happening at all? Or is this more about preventing the final result of that crime; stopping it in motion rather than preventing the entire outlay of actions? If you stopped someone just before they did the deed then you've got them on at least attempted murder and the timeline is still linear.

It is about the 'intent' of the crime spotted early rather than chronological paradox, because time is not altered. That intent was still there X minutes/hours ago, it was just acted upon. You 'saw' the crime and stopped it. You can't 'not see' the crime because time has moved on; you haven't gone back in time before that crime was thought up.

Or am I not making sense?? I can understand if I'm not!

 

[Bugz]

You cannot judge someone with doubt, no matter how small.

Interesting point but everything has an element of doubt tbh. I mean forensic science is considered the 'ultimate proof' now-a-days, but some methods of forensic examining have been stopped over the years because their accuracy simply was not good enough.

Thus begs the question, if 99.9% of the time you predicted the right killer - is it worth risking the 99.9% of people for the 0.01% in which you predict the wrong killer?

If we extend this to say - 2 individuals: one can live, the other has to die - do you save one and let the other die or let them both die?

Sometimes I think their has to be a sacrifice for the greater good...

Just throwing random thoughts out here. I thoroughly enjoyed the film btw although it was rather long. Nothing like staying up to 2;30am when you have an exam at 9am the next day ;d

 

[Ch3tan]

Firstly, if methods are not accurate they are no longer used - like forensic methods that are not accurate enough, lie detectors etc.

You are talking about a method with a known accuracy, but it is not perfect. You cannot therefore judge someone on that basis. Without over-complicating this I think that even if such a case went to court, that the defence would have an easy time arguing the what-ifs and it going nowhere.

However, I think Ez and Toht's points about affecting the future and paradox's are a much more compelling reason to not use something like this if it was possible.

 

[Bugz]

Good point.

The problematic thing is this;

You see a crime happening.
This prompts you stop the crime.
The crime never happened.
You didn't see the crime because it never happened.
You don't stop the crime.
You see the crime

But surely the initial vision is simply a projection of the future with the situation as it originally was.

By altering that projection of the future, you are simply going down a different set path.

Thus the crime never happened but had you not known about it in the first place, it would have happened.

Ofcourse this begs the question, what if one crime is based off another crime. If one crime gets stopped; will the other be stopped too? That way you are altering many paths with just one and the distortions in the future could be catastrophic.

Good food for thought tbh.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But surely the initial vision is simply a projection of the future with the situation as it originally was.

By altering that projection of the future, you are simply going down a different set path.

Thus the crime never happened but had you not known about it in the first place, it would have happened.

Ofcourse this begs the question, what if one crime is based off another crime. If one crime gets stopped; will the other be stopped too? That way you are altering many paths with just one and the distortions in the future could be catastrophic.

Good food for thought tbh.

Aye, plenty of speculation, like for example;

Do you, by trying to stop the crime, actually make the crime happen?

 

[Bugz]

Aye, plenty of speculation, like for example;

Do you, by trying to stop the crime, actually make the crime happen?

It's funny you ask that if you haven't seen or read the book because it hints at the fact that the main character studies these 3 humans who can predict the future and sees that he is next to murder someone. But in him doing all he can to make sure it doesn't come true, seems to get closer & closer to it becoming true, to the point where it happens just as the physic people said it would.

Is this a case because he tried to stop it happening, or would it have happened whatever route he took?

Furthermore, had he say phoned into sick at work today and had not seen the prediction that he would murder someone, would that prediction still have been made or was it 'targetted' for him, so he could see it, try to stop and thus in fact cause it.

Hmmm! :d

 

[old.Tohtori]

I remembered the movie as Tom Whacky Cruise eing set up, you know, wrong visions etc.

In any case, you could add the old matrix saying; If i hadn't told you about the vase, would you have dropped it.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

Depends which form of string-theory you subscribe to as to whether a paradox would exist!


Ignoring string a mo, the one i personally like is: you go back in time and kill both your parents. You no longer exist. Therefore you cannot go back in time and kill your parents. But if you cant go back in time and kill your parents, you are in fact alive, which means you can go back in time and kill your parents.

Etc ad infinitum.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't see how you can be responsible for a crime you have not carried out yet. Surely you cannot punish someone for something for which they are not responsible?

 

[Raven]

No, because no crime has been committed. They could stop them from doing it though.

Should they be prosecuted for failing to stop the crime from being committed?

 

[Jeremiah]

No, because no crime has been committed. They could stop them from doing it though.

Should they be prosecuted for failing to stop the crime from being committed?

I can't think of a crime in which the "planning" to carry out said crime is not a crime in itself. In many ways the "intent" is as much of a crime as the act, and so at this point they can be prosecuted. Are we not talking about prosecuting before even the intent?

 

[Zenith.UK]

Haven't any of you actually seen the film?

Tom Cruise explains it to Colin "Fockin'" Farrell like this:

(Tom rolls an evidence redball along the counter, Colin catches it)

John Anderton: Why'd you catch that?
Danny Witwer: Because it was going to fall.
John Anderton: You're certain?
Danny Witwer: Yeah.
John Anderton: But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesnt change the fact that it was *going* to happen.

It's one of my favourite sci-fi flicks of recent years.

 

[mooSe_]

If you can tell what people are going to do in the future then surely no one has any free will? And if someone doesn't have free will then you can't rightly punish them for a crime.

 

[Bugz]

If you can tell what people are going to do in the future then surely no one has any free will? And if someone doesn't have free will then you can't rightly punish them for a crime.

That is a very interesting thought.

 

[pez]

Why not just stop them murdering, give them a bit of therapy and then either release them or hold them on the grounds they are unsafe to be in society.

Most murders are probably not committed by serial killers or even potential serial killers.

 

[Mey]

You can already get arrested before you have commited a crime (If the officer suspects you are about to commit a crime.)

 

[Lucius]

I think it is as simple as stopping the murder. I am a keen Physicist and I don't believe in this 'changing fate' theory, this is of course my opinion .