"Minority Report" type situation - a hypothetical question

2006-11-19 23:45:22

#1

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6948|Tampa Bay Florida

The film Minority Report raises very good some moral and philosophical questions, as well as being a damn good thriller (in my opinion).

Assume, for a moment, that the any given government had the ability to predict murders with extreme detail and accuracy, before they happened, and it was easy enough to catch the killer, and arrest them, before they committed the the murder.

My question to you is : Would you support a government arresting and convicting suspects for murders which would've occured sometime in the future, knowing that about 1 in 10 people convicted would be innocent?

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-11-20 00:12:01)

2006-11-19 23:50:29

#2

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6787|Global Command

Well, hell no.
Unless they were insaneIslamofascist.

2006-11-19 23:53:01

#3

Pernicious544: Zee Tank Skank; +80|6958|MoVal So-Cal

make the ratio better, something like 9999 out of 10,000 could be acceptable as the one person that is innocent would be proven innocent when the person that he is supposed to kill but doesnt kill gets killed. (revenge of the run on)

2006-11-20 00:12:20

#4

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6948|Tampa Bay Florida

changed 5 to 10

2006-11-20 00:15:07

#5

Pernicious544: Zee Tank Skank; +80|6958|MoVal So-Cal

make the 10 a 45 and we have a minority making deal

2006-11-20 00:17:07

#6

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7024|UK

We already have bad ratios so yes I probably would.

2006-11-20 02:04:35

#7

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6751|Connecticut

No way. There some people on this forum I would love to pummel to death. I dont want Tom Cruise anywhere near my house for any reason, especially to arrest me. Although if I did it in the summer I would be thrown into a "torture" chamber with air conditioning and Red Hot Chili Peppers playing. Not sooooo bad after all. *thinking of killing*

Malloy must go

2006-11-20 04:07:28

#8

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6807|Southeastern USA

the thing is, how could you prove the program actually worked? you'd have to sit around the scene of the crime and wait for it to take place to know for sure.

2006-11-20 05:34:26

#9

Jenkinsbball: Banned; +149|6806|USA bitches!

I say go for it, as I'll never murder anyone under any circumstances. Eh... unless I'm protecting my family or something, but that isn't murder, it's self defense.

2006-11-20 10:39:16

#10

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6948|Tampa Bay Florida

kr@cker wrote:
the thing is, how could you prove the program actually worked? you'd have to sit around the scene of the crime and wait for it to take place to know for sure.

Well, if you observe the scene of the murder, and after 100 or more surveillences most of the predictions turn out to be correct, you'd pretty much know it worked...

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-11-20 13:14:27)

2006-11-20 11:23:14

#11

Erkut.hv: Member; +124|6993|California

Jenkinsbball wrote:
I say go for it, as I'll never murder anyone under any circumstances. Eh... unless I'm protecting my family or something, but that isn't murder, it's self defense.

How do you know? You don't happen to have some sort of future predicting device do you? I knew it! One does exist.

Answer to OP: Hell no.

Thought Police FTW!

2006-11-20 11:30:07

#12

Dec45: Member; +12|6899

Theoretically, you'd be locking people up for being human.

2006-11-20 11:32:06

#13

PspRpg-7: -; +961|6956

Just stop them from murdering them...

2006-11-21 05:41:13

#14

grobmobularb: Banned; +3|6629

Pernicious544 wrote:
make the ratio better, something like 9999 out of 10,000 could be acceptable as the one person that is innocent would be proven innocent when the person that he is supposed to kill but doesnt kill gets killed. (revenge of the run on)

Not sure if someone replied to this, but that arguement is flawed.

If they had a device that showed the future, and in it you killed a man, and they arrested you, the man wouldn't be killed by you, because you'd be in custody. So, you can't really be proven innocent for not killing him because you were detained.

That's the whole debate. How can you really justify detaining someone and imprisoning them for something they've not done. BUT, if it's proven that the machine works, then I'd be all for it.

2006-11-21 06:46:55

#15

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

Here's a better question: would you support the arrest of people if the system were 100% effective given that, technically, they're all innocent.

2006-11-21 06:54:51

#16

silo1180: The Farewell Tour; +79|6680|San Antonio, TX

Dang that Phillip Dick can write some great stories...

How about if the police know how/when/where you are going to commit the crime, they wait for you there. Once you show up and attempt to perform the crime you are arrested.

Of course the laws would have to be changed based on intent, rather than actual committal of a crime.

2006-11-21 06:56:00

#17

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

Not in the scenario you suggest: that would be attempted murder/theft/etc.

If you didn't wait them out however, yes you would.

2006-11-21 07:06:43

#18

Bernadictus: Moderator; +1,055|6995

Spearhead wrote:
The film Minority Report raises very good some moral and philosophical questions, as well as being a damn good thriller (in my opinion).

Assume, for a moment, that the any given government had the ability to predict murders with extreme detail and accuracy, before they happened, and it was easy enough to catch the killer, and arrest them, before they committed the the murder.

My question to you is : Would you support a government arresting and convicting suspects for murders which would've occurred sometime in the future, knowing that about 1 in 10 people convicted would be innocent?

Well, there are enough issues with innocent people in jail, in the US. This is because of your ridiculous Jury system.

And yes, I would support a government that prevents future murders, IF that would stop people from murdering one and another.

2006-11-21 07:21:57

#19

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

Heh........Bernadictus has basically already stated his opinion on this............actions speak louder than words, as they say.

2006-11-21 07:26:34

#20

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7030|PNW

Spearhead wrote:
The film Minority Report raises very good some moral and philosophical questions, as well as being a damn good thriller (in my opinion).

Assume, for a moment, that the any given government had the ability to predict murders with extreme detail and accuracy, before they happened, and it was easy enough to catch the killer, and arrest them, before they committed the the murder.

My question to you is : Would you support a government arresting and convicting suspects for murders which would've occured sometime in the future, knowing that about 1 in 10 people convicted would be innocent?

Arrest, no. Temporarily detain until prediction's nullified, possibly. Question and warn, yes. However, the system would stand to be the subject of much misuse and outright-abuse.

Under no circumstances should conviction by means of predicted evidence be allowed.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-21 07:27:29)

2006-11-21 07:34:15

#21

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6807|Southeastern USA

yeah, and we've already seen that it can be tampered with, damn those little wooden balls.

2006-11-21 09:43:55

#22

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6980|Eastern PA

kr@cker wrote:
yeah, and we've already seen that it can be tampered with, damn those little wooden balls.

Well...obviously we'd have to use high-grade ceramic balls and titanium doohickeys.

2006-11-21 11:35:09

#23

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|6807|EUtopia | Austria

As soon as this method would be more accurate than present adjudication (and improving) - why not?

Of course we'd also need a new system of temporary imprisonment. Being caught once should teach people a lesson, I guess.

Last edited by Stormscythe (2006-11-21 11:37:19)

2006-11-21 11:39:32

#24

JimG: Member; +0|6625

Spearhead wrote:
The film Minority Report raises very good some moral and philosophical questions, as well as being a damn good thriller (in my opinion).

Assume, for a moment, that the any given government had the ability to predict murders with extreme detail and accuracy, before they happened, and it was easy enough to catch the killer, and arrest them, before they committed the the murder.

My question to you is : Would you support a government arresting and convicting suspects for murders which would've occured sometime in the future, knowing that about 1 in 10 people convicted would be innocent?

No i wouldnt. Our population is too large already, human nature keeps it down.

2006-11-21 12:43:44

#25

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|6994|Salt Lake City

Although innocent people have been convicted, the bases of our judicial system is that we would rather let 10 guilty people go than convict one innocent person. With that in mind, just something to think about.

How do we determine the accuracy of these predictions? Do we allow them to be predicted and then allow them to happen? How many do we allow to happen before we consider the predictions accurate, 10, 100, 100000? As with anything of science, you can make a formula and run the numbers numerous times to see if it holds true, but because values/variables are infinite, there is no way to test them all.

Ultimately you end up with an ethical dilemma. To prove the accuracy you have to let it happen, but how many crimes have to happen before you accept the accuracy and destroy the life of some one who hasn't actually done anything at the time they were arrested. Since it is absolutely impossible to prove 100% accuracy, and since no crime was actually/physically committed, how would you go about appealing such a conviction for the crime that never happened?

BF2S Forums "Minority Report" type situation - a hypothetical question

kr@cker wrote:

Jenkinsbball wrote:

Pernicious544 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Board footer