Is catching someone who's going to commit a crime BEFORE committing the crime, right or wrong?

Question

I'm the same guy who asked the question, "Is it acceptable to catch someone who's about to commit a crime before he/she commits it?" I rephrased both my question and argument.

I read all of your answers and I understood your thoughts. Thus, I came up with the above question, which by the way is sort of similar to the previous.

Some of you argue that it's like arresting individuals who have broken no law. But the point here is they will broke the law, because the commission of the crime itself is absolute metaphysics. The-whatever- tool the government will use to see the future will never be wrong. Given that information, some of you also think that it is not the future is they stop it, otherwise it will be a fundamental paradox, which indeed is what predetermination is. Predetermination happens all the time. You know that this person is going to kill this other person. You arrest him because you want to prevent him from committing the crime. Therefore, the fact of preventing a crime from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen.

Some of you said that there are always false positives or alternative future, thinking that the killer might never go through with the crime. But the thing is, the tool that will be used to see the future of a crime will not see what the killer is intending to do, but only what the killer will do.

This is a question inspired by the movie MINORITY REPORT starred Tom Cruise.

Answer 1

Put simply, prevention is better than cure, so in most instances yes it is better to catch somebody before they commit the crime.

Answer 2

Dude, you've seen one too many sci-fi movies.  You really need to give it a break and come back to earth.

Answer 3

There is either a crime or not, someone could be in the act and back out the last minute, so its still not a crime. You cant pros acute what someone is thinking, however they have prosecuted someones intent, which is pretty close.

Answer 4

In England and Wales, police officers already have the power to arrest an individual who they reasonable suspect is ABOUT to commit an offence.  This is for obvious reasons, for example if a police officer was watching someone who was just about to hit someone with a baseball bat it would be ridiculous to expect them to have to wait for the offender to actually assault the person before they could be arrested.  To prevent the crime from taking place in the first place.

This on it's own however will not normally result in a prosecution as you cannot and should not ever be punished without actually committing a crime.  There would be no system in the future where it will be possible to predict what an individual will do.  And in any case most crimes actually involve very little or no premeditation.  They are acted upon on the spur of the moment.

Something else to think about.  In England and Wales you may not be able to be prosecuted for a crime you have not committed however, this is not entirely true.  

You may be prosecuted for an 'attempt' to commit a crime.  This is when the offender has committed himself to carry out the act but for reasons outside of his control is unable to.  Also, more interestingly you can be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit an offence.  This is when, for example a group of two or more people get together and PLAN to carry out a crime, like burglary.  There is no requirement for them to actually carry it out.

Answer 5

We do that now.  It's called "Conspiracy to commit".  Possession of burglarious tools, possession of armored car routes/times, layout of a bank are just a few examples.  In most criminal law ONLY INTENT must be proven to show that a crime was or was going to be committed.  

Minority Report was a great movie but built on a premise of the unproven and highly criticized use of psychics.  Simply they do not exist...making educated guesses or just getting lucky.  Like Nostradamus, he predicted a lot more things that didn't happen then did.  If you flip a coin 1000 times, at least once it'll land on heads.

Answer 6

If your efforts are aimed at Preventing crime you will be supported - You cannot go catch someone for any crime you think he might commit.

Answer 7

I think it's absolutely right. If the tool was never wrong we'd HAVE to stop them. I'd say we were morally obligated to prevent it from happening if we knew. Being aware of an impending crime and not stopping it is almost as bad as committing it.

I also think their sentence should be the same as if they had already committed it.