NationStates Jolt Archive

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.

Like that movie Minority Report (where psychics see crime happening in the future, and cops arrest the criminal before he commits the crime).

In a more realistic setting, there's something called entrapment where cops tempt criminals into committing crimes they otherwise would not have, in a sense setting out to punish them for something they haven't done yet.

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.
Haha, I don't know about the space-time continuum, but the future does not yet exist, so to hold someone responsible for something they haven't done at a time that doesn't exist is kinda silly.

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.


Yawn!!!!

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.

/me thinks about it for a moment: "Hmmm...."

I, myself, am a science fiction/fantasy fan, and that includes time travel. So, I have thought about this, before.

My opinion is that, if you know someone is going to do something (regardless of whether it's time travel, precognition, or something more mundane like "the evidence points in that direction"), then you can put yourself in a position where you can alter the events or conditions leading up to the crime, accident, or whatever you want to call The Bad Thing That's Going To Happen. In this case, punishment is only called for if the Bad Thing can't be prevented (in spite of your foreknowledge) or if the person in question had deliberate intent to cause the Bad Thing to happen at the time that you intervened.

If you can prevent it, then you may not need to punish anyone (unless someone still poses a threat beyond whatever Bad Thing it was that you prevented).

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

... a few weeks back I floated this one, perhaps it won't sink so fast on this thread. Rather than waste taxpayers' money and put human lives at risk by waylaying firefighters, why not have the limbs of kittycats amputated at birth so as to prevent them from getting stuck up on high tree branches?

As stated by Cog, you can see two completely different approaches into this: The "Minority Report" approach (punishment) and the Isaac Asimov's Multivac approach (prevention). I'm sure Cog knows about Multivac, if someone else doesn't, then: go read some Asimov RIGHT NOW!.

As stated by Cog, you can see two completely different approaches into this: The "Minority Report" approach (punishment) and the Isaac Asimov's "Multivac" approach (prevention). I'm sure Cog knows about Multivac, if someone else doesn't, then: go read some Asimov RIGHT NOW!.

I think you'll find only a tiny number of people who post here have read Isaac's work, and of those, more than half dismiss the late good Doctor's work as jeuvenile and not worth thinking about.

That's just my experience, however. I could also be terribly wrong.

I'm not certain about the space-time continum (continuum. I know it looks wrong, but it is the prefered spelling, not to be a Nazi about it, but just to point it out because the less common spelling is being repeated) being screwed up, as it's nature is so peculiar, I mean two time dimensions perpindicular to each other? I do agree however that it does play hobb with causality. I myself have had problems with this concept for a long time, and have even more problems with punishing people not for things that they will do in the future, but only might do in the future. It bothers me, but society seems to adopted the stance that it is OK to punish people for things they might do by simply criminalizing having a propensity towards doing something wrong.

I think you'll find only a tiny number of people who post here have read Isaac's work, and of those, more than half dismiss the late good Doctor's work as jeuvenile and not worth thinking about.

That's just my experience, however. I could also be terribly wrong.

If we can't help them then nobody will...

Do yourselves a favor and read Asimov for crying out loud...

And while you're at it, find Dune and the rest of related Herbert's novels; the knowledge of all posible futures is more "realistic" than thinking that there's only one possible future at a determined point.

I think you'll find only a tiny number of people who post here have read Isaac's work, and of those, more than half dismiss the late good Doctor's work as jeuvenile and not worth thinking about.

That's just my experience, however. I could also be terribly wrong.


Lol true

All we need to solve this is Daneel Olivaw ! he does great good!

As stated by Cog, you can see two completely different approaches into this: The "Minority Report" approach (punishment) and the Isaac Asimov's Multivac approach (prevention). I'm sure Cog knows about Multivac, if someone else doesn't, then: go read some Asimov RIGHT NOW!.
Actually, I was not aware of any fictional entity named MultiVac until you mentioned it just now. I contemplated the prevention approach based upon the various other Sci-Fi/Fantasy stories I have watched or read, but no specific examples come to mind. I will keep an eye out for the relevant Asimov work and read it if I have time.

I do agree however that it does play hobb with causality.
"...play hobb..."? I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means.

I myself have had problems with this concept for a long time, and have even more problems with punishing people not for things that they will do in the future, but only might do in the future. It bothers me, but society seems to adopted the stance that it is OK to punish people for things they might do by simply criminalizing having a propensity towards doing something wrong.
I need to think about this in more detail, since I haven't thought about it in a while, but I tend to agree. If someone has a propensity towards doing something wrong (and this propensity is known), then it needs to be corrected and prevented. However, punishing someone for it is not appropriate (in my opinion) because he/she hasn't actually done anything wrong, yet, and can serve to unnecessarily alienate some people.

If you know that someone is going to committ a crime, then an appropriate response would be to try to correct the root causes that motivate the crime (if possible) or otherwise be prepared to catch the criminal in the act.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

"...play hobb..."? I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means.Sorry, regional archaic English variant, based upon the "hob" or "hobb" being a mischevous species of fairy, "plays hob with" is equivalent to "screws up" or "messes with" in the modern vernacular. I need to think about this in more detail, since I haven't thought about it in a while, but I tend to agree. If someone has a propensity towards doing something wrong (and this propensity is known), then it needs to be corrected and prevented. However, punishing someone for it is not appropriate (in my opinion) because he/she hasn't actually done anything wrong, yet, and can serve to unnecessarily alienate some people.
To make this easier, the whole concept came to my attention through the concrete example of Drunk Driving. Instead of punishing someone for having an accident while driving intoxicated, we merely shift the goal post so that driving drunk is the crime because by doing so you are increasaing your chance of having an accident. But effectively no one has ever been harmed merely by someone driving drunk, it is only when the driver does things llike run over people that they cause harm.

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.
I know somebody mentioned Minority Report here . . .

Laws of physics aside, the concept of "precrime" is a violation of one's privacy (supposedly the law would have Total Information Awareness over their subject(s) - why the hell would you want to punish somebody for the future crime of something that ends up being averted???? Effectively, one could snoop in on anybody, including INNOCENT PEOPLE, all in the name of this so-called "pre-justice"

Sorry, regional archaic English variant, based upon the "hob" or "hobb" being a mischevous species of fairy, "plays hob with" is equivalent to "screws up" or "messes with" in the modern vernacular.
Yorkshire?

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

Can you give a more specific example or link to the topic/thread/post in question? For me, it's too broad to speculate whether this is right or wrong, because personally there's several cases where I would punish someone for something that might happen in the future.

Can you give a more specific example or link to the topic/thread/post in question? For me, it's too broad to speculate whether this is right or wrong, because personally there's several cases where I would punish someone for something that might happen in the future.
I believe he's referring to the person that claimed the US "deserved 9/11", because of all those innocent iraqi civvies that are dying *now*.

Can you give a more specific example or link to the topic/thread/post in question? For me, it's too broad to speculate whether this is right or wrong, because personally there's several cases where I would punish someone for something that might happen in the future.
Like what?

Yorkshire?If I recall correctly it's Irish, but I may be wrong on that

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.

Well, my main problem with it is that it makes a hash of the notion of free will, and if free will goes out the window, it's nearly impossible to make sense of punishment.

Basically, punishment is only just if you can assume that a person could, theoretically, have chosen a different course of action. For example, when you rub a puppy's nose in the carpet when he piddles on the floor, you're punishing him, but under the assumption that this will train him to want to go outside next time. If you were to lock him in a room, refuse to let him out, and then punish him when he pees on the floor, you'd just be torturing him.

However, the whole notion of punishing someone based on that they are going to do in some future time is based on the idea that there is a distinct causal chain in play that is a) definite, and b) uncontrollable by the person involved. In this case, however, you have to assume that it would have been completely impossible for that person to at some point make a choice that would have altered the outcome. But if this is the case, how then is this person different from the puppy you locked in the room? It doesn't seem that there is much if any, and if so, how then can you even make sense of punishment? It seems logically contradictory, or at the least a phenomenally unjust conception of law and order.

Well, my main problem with it is that it makes a hash of the notion of free will, and if free will goes out the window, it's nearly impossible to make sense of punishment.

Basically, punishment is only just if you can assume that a person could, theoretically, have chosen a different course of action. For example, when you rub a puppy's nose in the carpet when he piddles on the floor, you're punishing him, but under the assumption that this will train him to want to go outside next time. If you were to lock him in a room, refuse to let him out, and then punish him when he pees on the floor, you'd just be torturing him.

However, the whole notion of punishing someone based on that they are going to do in some future time is based on the idea that there is a distinct causal chain in play that is a) definite, and b) uncontrollable by the person involved. In this case, however, you have to assume that it would have been completely impossible for that person to at some point make a choice that would have altered the outcome. But if this is the case, how then is this person different from the puppy you locked in the room? It doesn't seem that there is much if any, and if so, how then can you even make sense of punishment? It seems logically contradictory, or at the least a phenomenally unjust conception of law and order.Not bad, but instead of increasing the severity of the punishment so it bears no realtionship to instruction, I think you should change it to giving the same punishment to the puppy for having a tail. The puppy has no choice in the matter of whether or not it has a tail, therefore it is irrational to punish the puppy for something it has no control over.

Not bad, but instead of increasing the severity of the punishment so it bears no realtionship to instruction, I think you should change it to giving the same punishment to the puppy for having a tail. The puppy has no choice in the matter of whether or not it has a tail, therefore it is irrational to punish the puppy for something it has no control over.

I like your thinking.

Just to be boring and add a real world perspective, we have what is called Preventive Detention in New Zealand.

This is where in certain deserving cases, a sentencing judge can impose imprisonment on top of the ordinary sentence being imposed for the crime actually committed. So what happens is you serve the time for the crimes you committed, then you stay in prison because the judge has found that you are likely to commit further crimes. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, this is okay so long as there are compelling reasons and there is periodic review of the preventive detention part.

Now to get PD, you actually have to have committed a crime and it is normally imposed on recidivist offenders in any case.

So for those instances when you somehow know that someone is going to commit a crime, so you punish them beforehand...well, you simply can't do that. Legally speaking. Because there's nothing to be punished for, there is no crime with which a court can try you.

Messing with the time-space continuum? I don't think it would have any effect because I don't believe the future is strictly linear in that way. There are many paths. Preventing something from happening in the future, would only mean that something else would happen in the future. But as it is in the future, nothing would *really* change, because it had never happened anyway and so nothing that has happened would have to alter to make up for it. Now, going back into the past and making something so that it didn't happen, that's different.

Another poster in this forum seems to think it is perfectly okay to punish someone today for things they will do in the future.

I think that messes with the space-time continum.

Comments please.

Bad idea. Start messing around with that and before you know it you're your own great grandfather. Not cool. :eek:

Just to be boring and add a real world perspective, we have what is called Preventive Detention in New Zealand.

This is where in certain deserving cases, a sentencing judge can impose imprisonment on top of the ordinary sentence being imposed for the crime actually committed. So what happens is you serve the time for the crimes you committed, then you stay in prison because the judge has found that you are likely to commit further crimes. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, this is okay so long as there are compelling reasons and there is periodic review of the preventive detention part.

Now to get PD, you actually have to have committed a crime and it is normally imposed on recidivist offenders in any case.

So for those instances when you somehow know that someone is going to commit a crime, so you punish them beforehand...well, you simply can't do that. Legally speaking. Because there's nothing to be punished for, there is no crime with which a court can try you.

Messing with the time-space continuum? I don't think it would have any effect because I don't believe the future is strictly linear in that way. There are many paths. Preventing something from happening in the future, would only mean that something else would happen in the future. But as it is in the future, nothing would *really* change, because it had never happened anyway and so nothing that has happened would have to alter to make up for it. Now, going back into the past and making something so that it didn't happen, that's different.

Hmmm. That's really not very enlightened. But I suppose it doesn't upset the continuum.