NationStates Jolt Archive

Make an issue about pre-crime, you know, like it Minority Report.

Make an issue about pre-crime, you know, like it Minority Report.


Have fun making one :wink:

Would you like some help? I'd love writing that issue!

hope you have a good time.

Why did this topic wash up all the sudden. Has anyone else noticed that Imperil Spain hasn't written anything in days :?:

What can I say, I'm lazy. :wink:

Awesome idea. Go for it!

Am I the only one who doesn't know what "pre-crime" means? What would this issue be about?

Am I the only one who doesn't know what "pre-crime" means? What would this issue be about?
Pre-crime is a sci-fi idea, most recently used on screen in the Tom Cruise film Minority Report. The basic idea is that something or someone can see into the future and establish that you're going to rob and murder a defenceless old lady at 6PM tonight, so all the police have to do is catch you before you do it - rather than go through the messy business of having grieving families and so on.

But it's like... can you really arrest someone for something they didn't do? I personally find it apalling and would chose to outlaw the practice every time.

Anyway, OK, the issue idea is good...

Ah. I read a ton of science fiction but don't watch movies much, so I hadn't encountered the term before.

Logically, seeing crimes before they're committed and then preventing them doesn't make any sense. If you prevent a crime from being committed, then your past self would not be able to see it being committed, so you'd have no reason to go to that particular place to prevent it, so the crime would occur, and you've just trapped yourself in a paradox...

Most real science fiction writers (as opposed to Hollywood screenwriters) 8) take the opposite approach in applying time viewing to crime: after a crime is committed, you use your time viewer to look back in time, see exactly who committed it, watch exactly where they went after committing it, then go and arrest them. Since you have what amounts to a perfect video record of them committing the crime, every arrest is followed swiftly by a guilty verdict, and since nobody can commit crimes without getting caught and convicted, the crime rate drops to virtually nothing -- the only people who will still commit crimes are those who are too stupid or too insane to be deterred. And you don't have to commit any space-time paradoxes with this method. 8)

I would think that Philip Dick, whose novel by the same name: "Minority Report," is based upon is a real science fiction writer.

It still can be explained if one has a future-viewer (which by its nature is impossible, so don't bother). If I am to strike you, I must put my hand into a fist, set myself up, and finally put it into your face. But, For you to know that I am to hit you, does this require me to have physical contact? No. By watching my arm, you can see all the necessary actions for me to finally punch.
I would make a rule, however, that the actual event can not be watched. If one were to do so, one might see whether the person is stopped. That would be cause for a paradox if the preventer does not appear. Then the question is, did the preventer no get there in time, or did the knowledge that it wouldn't reach it in time convince it not to go at all.
{Argument for it} It is fallacy to pretend that one is being arrested for something that one did not do in this case. If you look at the laws themselves, most crimes punish for the intent to do thus and such. However, failing mindreading, the only way we can know intent is by doing the deed. That is why there is so much hubbub about duress, insanity, and other exceptions to intent. As an example, assult is (paraphrased) intent to cause apprehension of harm upon another.
As well, by watching the warning signs (fist clench and reeling in the arm) we have very good indicators that the psuedocriminal was going to do it anyway, so where is the problem? But they didn't actually make contact with the face? Why let them? To pretend that they would change their mind with the fist in flight displays a misunderstanding of humans. In the demonstration of reactions where another person drops a dollar between your fingers and you can't catch it, the way to win is to not watch the fingers. Watching the fingers open is too late. One must wach the eyes of the dropper. The eye will make a suspicious move just before the hand and one can grab the dollar.
Allow pre-crime in your countries, it is a duty to potential victims everywhere.
N Prado

That you have never read Philip K. Dick or heard of pre-crime which the murder mystery plot of Minority Report is built around tells me you still have a ton of reading reading ahead of you Oobag. Heh.

Here is a good place to start.
http://www.philipkdick.com/

44 published novels 36 sci-fi and 8 mainstream
121 published short stories which comprise a short story collection of 14 books
So far, 7 films have been based on his work. Bladerunner, Screamers, Total Recall, Confessions d'un Bario (in french), Imposter, Minority Report, and Paycheck (which, when John Woo got hold of it, had little to do with the actual story).
I recommend first hunting down Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (1968), which Bladerunner is based on.
The man was brilliant and one of the most respected and revered authors in the entire history of the science fiction genre.

I think the issue would be a good one btw.

But it's like... can you really arrest someone for something they didn't do? I personally find it apalling and would chose to outlaw the practice every time.

Anyway, OK, the issue idea is good...



So would i, and it is unrealistic but do it anyway :D

I have read several Philip K. Dick books and stories, including Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, "We Can Rember It For You Wholesale", and Valis. The latter was so weird it seriously put me off reading more of his stuff for the last couple of decades. Guess I should give some of the other books a try. Thanks for the link.

I haven't seen or read Minority Report, but where I have seen some concept of pre-crime, it did not involve anyone actually seeing the future. Instead, a hyperintelligent AI analyzed patterns (or whatever) and determined who was going to commit a crime, and when and where, from that.

Alternately, one can assume that one is seeing probable rather than definite futures, so there's no paradox if you prevent the future you saw from actually happening.