4 ms·

>if this is reducing crimes Every apprehension under this program is a crime by any definition other than the arbitrary declaration of an illegitimate regime.

>if this is reducing crimes Every apprehension under this program is a crime by any definition other than the arbitrary declaration of an illegitimate regime. It would be absolutely astonishing if the people apprehended were likely to illegally kidnap and hold at least 1 citizen in their basement for at least the length of time that these people are detained. Thus it can pretty much only increase crime.

mc32 9y ago
Not necessarily. If they are capturing these people because they will have committed a crime and that in and of itself is crime then its not reducing crime. It's possible that once enough people who on balance might commit a crime are arrested or impeded, then crime will indeed decrease.
- rayalez 9y ago
  I think you've missed the point. Even if this system works, people who have not committed a crime (yet) are innocent. Taking an innocent person, and improsoning him against his will is a crime, pretty extreme one. Even if this system works really well, it's hard to imagine that the crimes it prevents can be more extreme than the crimes it commits.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Taking an innocent person, and improsoning him against his will is a crime Every criminal justice system has to balance (1) the risk of convicting the innocent, (2) the risk of letting the true crime-committer commit additional crimes (due to not being caught or caught later), and (3) the risk of being abused. We don’t like pre-crime convictions because we believe risks 1 and 3 outweigh any gains in 2. A culture with a different balance of risks, however, could come to a different but consistent conclusion. I don’t like that conclusion. But it’s at least debatable. Putting political enemies in jail is not.
    - SerLava 9y ago
      >Every criminal justice system has to balance (1) the risk of convicting the innocent, But that's not balancing it. It's just convicting the innocent automatically. >We don’t like pre-crime convictions because we believe risks 1 and 3 outweigh any gains in 2. There is no such thing as a pre-crime conviction unless a crime occurs. >But it’s at least debatable. It's debatable in the same way any nonsense is debatable - you can put the words together in a sentence - but in the colloquial sense of "debatable" it really isn't.

mc32 9y ago

Not necessarily. If they are capturing these people because they will have committed a crime and that in and of itself is crime then its not reducing crime. It's possible that once enough people who on balance might commit a crime are arrested or impeded, then crime will indeed decrease.

rayalez 9y ago
I think you've missed the point. Even if this system works, people who have not committed a crime (yet) are innocent. Taking an innocent person, and improsoning him against his will is a crime, pretty extreme one. Even if this system works really well, it's hard to imagine that the crimes it prevents can be more extreme than the crimes it commits.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Taking an innocent person, and improsoning him against his will is a crime Every criminal justice system has to balance (1) the risk of convicting the innocent, (2) the risk of letting the true crime-committer commit additional crimes (due to not being caught or caught later), and (3) the risk of being abused. We don’t like pre-crime convictions because we believe risks 1 and 3 outweigh any gains in 2. A culture with a different balance of risks, however, could come to a different but consistent conclusion. I don’t like that conclusion. But it’s at least debatable. Putting political enemies in jail is not.
  - SerLava 9y ago
    >Every criminal justice system has to balance (1) the risk of convicting the innocent, But that's not balancing it. It's just convicting the innocent automatically. >We don’t like pre-crime convictions because we believe risks 1 and 3 outweigh any gains in 2. There is no such thing as a pre-crime conviction unless a crime occurs. >But it’s at least debatable. It's debatable in the same way any nonsense is debatable - you can put the words together in a sentence - but in the colloquial sense of "debatable" it really isn't.