3 ms·

> we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous ... it leaves very little time to actually intervene before something bad happens I mean that feels lik

> we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous ... it leaves very little time to actually intervene before something bad happens I mean that feels like it's dangerously treading close to "pre-crime". I feel like it doesn't take much to extend that logic to poor rural children whose mothers are raising them in urban gang-run areas. I mean I can see the germ of the idea, but it's ripe for abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crime

woeirua 4y ago
CPS can already take children out of homes in spite of the fact that no one has died yet in said situation. That is for good reason. Failing to act before a crime has actually been committed in many of those situations would lead to unnecessary deaths.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > CPS already takes children away from their families in spite of the fact that no child has yet died in their home, for good reason. It does so, in theory, based on indicia of objective danger (and is not without deep and serious problems in when it does act, as well as when it does not.) It very much does not support the position of taking action when there is neither crime nor objective danger.