If you imagine a scenario with a known murderer and you have two options:
* Wait until he does a murder, and then try to capture him AND prove it was him
* Seduce him into planning a murder and then arrest him before he carries it out
The second seems desirable, given the "known murderer" part. And once you've setup something to do that, it becomes very easy to feed others into it.
> The second seems desirable, given the "known murderer" part. And once you've setup something to do that, it becomes very easy to feed others into it.
If you haven't done the first, how do you get to the conclusion they are a "known murderer"?
This is minority report bullshit.
If you have a known murderer that is free presumably he's already paid for his crimes, no? So luring him into doing it again is extremely anti-ethical to me.
There's no pre-crime... yet. This is where you get profiling and abuse of power everywhere.
IDK how we can say manipulating people into commiting crimes is a good option. That's a crime. If we're going to commit crimes in the name of "preventing crimes" then why not go and arrest/kill the suspect directly? It's simply a different crime, right? But since I have the monopoly on violence, I can do what I want and case closed.
How can this be a good option?
I'd say it's Psycho-Pass more than Minority Report. They're fishing for latent criminals.