Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Precrime arrest

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:57:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a hypothetical that is meant to bring up a moral question in politics. I just watched Minority Report so I figured I'd ask what your guys' opinions on it would be.
Suppose that by some means we may know that someone is going to commit a crime before they do. Is it justifiable to arrest them for it before they have done anything?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:00:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:57:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a hypothetical that is meant to bring up a moral question in politics. I just watched Minority Report so I figured I'd ask what your guys' opinions on it would be.
Suppose that by some means we may know that someone is going to commit a crime before they do. Is it justifiable to arrest them for it before they have done anything?

Define "done anything". Because, if I know that a murderer is on his way to my house, with a gun, full intent to shoot me in the head, I'm fine having him arrested or shot, even though he hasn't really committed a crime.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:03:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:00:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2011 2:57:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a hypothetical that is meant to bring up a moral question in politics. I just watched Minority Report so I figured I'd ask what your guys' opinions on it would be.
Suppose that by some means we may know that someone is going to commit a crime before they do. Is it justifiable to arrest them for it before they have done anything?

Define "done anything". Because, if I know that a murderer is on his way to my house, with a gun, full intent to shoot me in the head, I'm fine having him arrested or shot, even though he hasn't really committed a crime.

Interesting. All the Libertarians I've already talked to about it have been appalled by the idea.

I don't see why I need to define "done anything".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:04:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm having problems with premature ejaculation and will soon compensate by changing my ideology to Psychic Police Statism

Cool story bro.

(You might prefer the response you get when you tell us your epistemic methodolgy)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:08:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:04:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm having problems with premature ejaculation and will soon compensate by changing my ideology to Psychic Police Statism

Cool story bro.

(You might prefer the response you get when you tell us your epistemic methodolgy)

Why do you assume that I'm advertising it? Most of my threads in politics are, in-fact, not about any new ideology I have.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:11:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If Funnybot take comedy seriously he not comedian. Error. Error.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:12:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:03:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:00:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2011 2:57:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a hypothetical that is meant to bring up a moral question in politics. I just watched Minority Report so I figured I'd ask what your guys' opinions on it would be.
Suppose that by some means we may know that someone is going to commit a crime before they do. Is it justifiable to arrest them for it before they have done anything?

Define "done anything". Because, if I know that a murderer is on his way to my house, with a gun, full intent to shoot me in the head, I'm fine having him arrested or shot, even though he hasn't really committed a crime.

Interesting. All the Libertarians I've already talked to about it have been appalled by the idea.

I think it's because of the epistemic problem of being unable to know totally that a crime is going to be committed before is. Given that omniscience is impossible, though, I think the libertarians would agree that a person can be arrested once they have actually expressed intention to commit a crime. I don't mean that in the colloquial sense of "I'm gonna kill you", but in the legalistic sense of "he got the gun and is driving over, which is sufficient cause for panic". I thank you for the topic, though, because it's an interesting subject to which I've not given a lot of consideration. I would actually like to know what my fellow libertarians think about it, and would like to hear some arguments. I'm fully willing to admit that my first impressions could be misguided, or even inconsistent with my political principles.

I don't see why I need to define "done anything".

Well, because it could mean basically anything. I'm asking for more of a threshold. Is it when he thinks about doing it? Is it when he buys the gun? Gets in his car to drive over? Pulls the gun on me? Shoots me?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:16:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:12:35 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Well, because it could mean basically anything. I'm asking for more of a threshold. Is it when he thinks about doing it? Is it when he buys the gun? Gets in his car to drive over? Pulls the gun on me? Shoots me?

When the crime is actually committed.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:19:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:16:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:12:35 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Well, because it could mean basically anything. I'm asking for more of a threshold. Is it when he thinks about doing it? Is it when he buys the gun? Gets in his car to drive over? Pulls the gun on me? Shoots me?

When the crime is actually committed.

In that case, I don't see how a libertarian would disagree. It's sort of odd to claim that you have to let a criminal shoot you before you can do anything. A man pulling a gun on me is sufficient warrant. Libertarians might claim that pulling the gun is an act of aggression in itself, but I would doubt the truth of that. He could easily just put the gun back in his coat and leave. Up until he shoots, he hasn't really done anything inherently aggressive.

Then again, it's late, and I've been out all night. I may not be thinking clearly, so I'll come back to this topic tomorrow after having slept on it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:47:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:19:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:16:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:12:35 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Well, because it could mean basically anything. I'm asking for more of a threshold. Is it when he thinks about doing it? Is it when he buys the gun? Gets in his car to drive over? Pulls the gun on me? Shoots me?

When the crime is actually committed.

In that case, I don't see how a libertarian would disagree. It's sort of odd to claim that you have to let a criminal shoot you before you can do anything. A man pulling a gun on me is sufficient warrant. Libertarians might claim that pulling the gun is an act of aggression in itself, but I would doubt the truth of that. He could easily just put the gun back in his coat and leave. Up until he shoots, he hasn't really done anything inherently aggressive.

Then again, it's late, and I've been out all night. I may not be thinking clearly, so I'll come back to this topic tomorrow after having slept on it.

In the movie, there was proposed to be a paradox. That, by arresting them, you are removing the very justification you have for arresting them, an act of aggression.

That makes me ponder. Are we truly concerned with the act of aggression itself and whether it is done, like Libertarian theory suggest, or are we simply concerned about people's safety?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:49:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:57:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Suppose that by some means we may know that someone is going to commit a crime before they do. Is it justifiable to arrest them for it before they have done anything?

If an aggressor poses an imminent threat and as you admit, we KNOW he's a threat, then yes, it is correct to react with force that stops him from initiating force upon you.

I don't know of any Libertarian who would say that they will wait to get shot in the head before attempting to prevent the act.

If the alleged aggressor doesn't wish to have force used against him, then he shouldn't be taking deceptive actions of aggression that could compromise himself.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:54:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:47:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
In the movie, there was proposed to be a paradox. That, by arresting them, you are removing the very justification you have for arresting them, an act of aggression.

Driving up to you and pulling out a gun are the first steps of the aggression and indeed are part of the aggression.

The act of aggression is not just one split moment, for if it were, when does the aggression occur? Is it at the moment the guy pulls out the gun, is it when he aims the gun at you, is it when he pulls the trigger, or is it when the bullet hits your head?

There are multiple steps in the act of aggression and an aggressor who takes action to reach your location to shoot your head, those are all steps of the act of aggression.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 4:44:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But if you stop the crime, the crime has not happened, so what crime are they charged with ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 5:09:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 4:44:08 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
But if you stop the crime, the crime has not happened, so what crime are they charged with ?

Initiating aggression.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:59:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd have to Know-know.

If i was sure of it.. I'd want to act to prevent it.

If preventing Horrendous violence in the long term requires imprisonment or execution of people who will seek to murder people... then so be it.

The idea of "Deserved Punishment" is misguided and is NOT what I'd be doing.. I would Not be punishing people for crimes they've yet to commit..

I'd be acting to prevent crimes.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:01:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:54:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:47:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
In the movie, there was proposed to be a paradox. That, by arresting them, you are removing the very justification you have for arresting them, an act of aggression.

Driving up to you and pulling out a gun are the first steps of the aggression and indeed are part of the aggression.

In the movie the "Perp" hasn't Done anything..

the police can see the future... and they're convinced that the perp WILL DO something.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:59:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
My friend claims that he was ambushed on the way to his Navigator a couple years back while he was drunk at a bar for attempting to drive drunk. He was drunk, and about to drive, but he hadn't gotten in the SUV yet.

At any rate, a crime is nothing but intention. Why else would there be a distinction between murder in self-defense versus cold-blood?
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:56:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:19:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:16:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:12:35 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Well, because it could mean basically anything. I'm asking for more of a threshold. Is it when he thinks about doing it? Is it when he buys the gun? Gets in his car to drive over? Pulls the gun on me? Shoots me?

When the crime is actually committed.

In that case, I don't see how a libertarian would disagree. It's sort of odd to claim that you have to let a criminal shoot you before you can do anything. A man pulling a gun on me is sufficient warrant. Libertarians might claim that pulling the gun is an act of aggression in itself, but I would doubt the truth of that. He could easily just put the gun back in his coat and leave.
And if I start raping you, I can pull out before shooting too! :)

Pointing a weapon at someone is an attempt to alter their behavior forcibly. A threat is not morally different from the deed.

Now, if he's driving over and happens to have a gun, I think that's rather different, unless he's made a threat somewhere else.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 12:56:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You have the right to defend yourself once you're reasonably convinced a crime is inevitably going to happen (or of course, when it's happening). Anybody else, including police, have the right to defend you under those same circumstances. But not any earlier.

You can only advocate Minority Report-style preemptive strikes if you deny free will.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:37:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:54:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:47:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
In the movie, there was proposed to be a paradox. That, by arresting them, you are removing the very justification you have for arresting them, an act of aggression.

Driving up to you and pulling out a gun are the first steps of the aggression and indeed are part of the aggression.

The act of aggression is not just one split moment, for if it were, when does the aggression occur? Is it at the moment the guy pulls out the gun, is it when he aims the gun at you, is it when he pulls the trigger, or is it when the bullet hits your head?

There are multiple steps in the act of aggression and an aggressor who takes action to reach your location to shoot your head, those are all steps of the act of aggression.

Suppose, like in the movie, that we are predicting the crime potentially hours earlier, before the person themselves may even be aware that they will commit a crime.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:37:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:54:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/12/2011 3:47:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
In the movie, there was proposed to be a paradox. That, by arresting them, you are removing the very justification you have for arresting them, an act of aggression.

Driving up to you and pulling out a gun are the first steps of the aggression and indeed are part of the aggression.

The act of aggression is not just one split moment, for if it were, when does the aggression occur? Is it at the moment the guy pulls out the gun, is it when he aims the gun at you, is it when he pulls the trigger, or is it when the bullet hits your head?

There are multiple steps in the act of aggression and an aggressor who takes action to reach your location to shoot your head, those are all steps of the act of aggression.

Suppose, like in the movie, that we are predicting the crime potentially hours earlier, before the person themselves may even be aware that they will commit a crime.

Then we are in an alternate universe where the metaphysics and epistemology that led to our ethics that led to our politics do not apply, and therefore this question is unimportant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 7:10:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You botched the question.

The premise of the movie was that murder could be foreseen before it happened, in fact in some cases before the murderer even know that he was going to commit a crime. Example: a man catches his wife cheating on him, and in a crime of passion kills her. Except the police see it coming and arrest him before it happens. The man might have no idea what would have caused him to kill his wife, and thus would be genuinley convinced that a mistake had been made, even if he would have in fact committed the crime.

They pretty much answered question in the movie. You can't actually know for sure what is going to happen in the future, and thus operating under the assumption that you can leads to unjustified violations of freedom.