3 ms·

Minority report scenario hinges on the fact that the crime predictions are not completely reliable. But if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's g

by Ace17 10y ago

Minority report scenario hinges on the fact that the crime predictions are not completely reliable. But if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it? This would be a dangerous change of perspective about free will and its relation to the law.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Also worth noting: predicting that someone will commit a crime doesn't mean that we have to arrest them. We could use the prediction to target other (voluntary) intervention. Of course, we already use less than 100% effective prediction to target non-arrest intervention, so it's quite possible that 100% prediction would only have the effect to better target what we already do (and potentially alleviate harm or waste), rather than Minority Report style pre-crime arrests. Im not sure crime prediction is a moral quagmire, just that what we use as a basis for prediction or a few drastic uses, like pre-crime arrests, are tough questions.
halomru 10y ago
>if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it If it was 100% correct, it seems morally justifiable to use it, as long as you are a dictatorship. For a democracy, you would need not only correctness, but independently verifiable correctness. If the algorithm is 100% correct today but can be influenced tomorrow, you are giving absolute power over the state to whoever can influence the algorithm. After all, it's impossible to proof your innocence if you are convicted before the crime. Basically, after solving the technical problems with creating the algorithm, you also need a system of checks and balances that can replace the public verifiability of our current court system.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  If it was 100%, all you would need to do was intervene in some manner where that likelihood dropped to 0%. For example, if the system can predict you will beat your spouse, then force the future-perp to come outside 10 minutes before and modify the scenario to the point where they wouldn't beat their spouse. With minority-report scenarios, it's not like you actually need to punish people as if they really did commit the crime, even though the crime is in the future. All you need to do is prevent it.
okonomiyaki3000 10y ago
You're already getting too far ahead of things. First, think about what a 'crime' is. What constitutes 'crime' is based entirely on what the 'law' is. Laws (in this sense) are a creation of man, not nature. So now we are correlating a man-made concept with something that is (at least partially) the product of nature. If this correlation is real, we need to explore that aspect of it before we start talking about policy. So what makes a face? Genes, sure but that can't be the whole story. Environment? Nutrition? Psychology? Over time, as a person matures, maybe all of these things and more play some role in how his face will turn out. Then, could it be that something behind the factors that shape a face also promote a psychology that puts less importance on submitting to authority? When we look at this as a criminal justice issue, that seems like a bad thing. In another context, it may not be. This is kind of what I mean by approaching the issue with an open mind.

by Ace17 10y ago

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Also worth noting: predicting that someone will commit a crime doesn't mean that we have to arrest them. We could use the prediction to target other (voluntary) intervention. Of course, we already use less than 100% effective prediction to target non-arrest intervention, so it's quite possible that 100% prediction would only have the effect to better target what we already do (and potentially alleviate harm or waste), rather than Minority Report style pre-crime arrests. Im not sure crime prediction is a moral quagmire, just that what we use as a basis for prediction or a few drastic uses, like pre-crime arrests, are tough questions.

halomru 10y ago

>if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it If it was 100% correct, it seems morally justifiable to use it, as long as you are a dictatorship. For a democracy, you would need not only correctness, but independently verifiable correctness. If the algorithm is 100% correct today but can be influenced tomorrow, you are giving absolute power over the state to whoever can influence the algorithm. After all, it's impossible to proof your innocence if you are convicted before the crime. Basically, after solving the technical problems with creating the algorithm, you also need a system of checks and balances that can replace the public verifiability of our current court system.

oh_sigh 10y ago
If it was 100%, all you would need to do was intervene in some manner where that likelihood dropped to 0%. For example, if the system can predict you will beat your spouse, then force the future-perp to come outside 10 minutes before and modify the scenario to the point where they wouldn't beat their spouse. With minority-report scenarios, it's not like you actually need to punish people as if they really did commit the crime, even though the crime is in the future. All you need to do is prevent it.

okonomiyaki3000 10y ago

You're already getting too far ahead of things. First, think about what a 'crime' is. What constitutes 'crime' is based entirely on what the 'law' is. Laws (in this sense) are a creation of man, not nature. So now we are correlating a man-made concept with something that is (at least partially) the product of nature. If this correlation is real, we need to explore that aspect of it before we start talking about policy. So what makes a face? Genes, sure but that can't be the whole story. Environment? Nutrition? Psychology? Over time, as a person matures, maybe all of these things and more play some role in how his face will turn out. Then, could it be that something behind the factors that shape a face also promote a psychology that puts less importance on submitting to authority? When we look at this as a criminal justice issue, that seems like a bad thing. In another context, it may not be. This is kind of what I mean by approaching the issue with an open mind.