catching a perpetrator before actually commiting a crime.. fair or not?

After the "rapists, deserving or mercy?" thread, and watching Judge Dredd, and Minority Report, I've come up with quite an interesting dilemma...

As we can see in the movies mentioned above, there is some way of seeing into the future, and crimes can be predicted.

The perpetrator is caught, taken into court, and sentanced.

I know we can't look into the future, but crimes can in a way be foreseen. But when you catch the crook, he/she hasn't really done anything YET...

How fair is it to sentance perpetrators who haven't actually commited the crime YET?

 

Well you could just tell them what they're going to do, which would usually stop them I assume.

But that creates a paradox.

 

I can see into the future, it's me going outside and punching a random passer by with frustration if this thread continues, I've just phoned the police to hand myself in.

 

Well, they allready know what they're going to do.. I guess..

 

MM, I dont think it would work. The problem is that you could never accurately tell the future. Humans are unpredictable, as you can never predict the orbit of an electron on an atom you can never predict what a human will do. Not accurately anyway. Even the best psychological exams and everything can't compensate for the human element where you can just do something random.

 

But assume you can.. I've created this thread more around the question:

is it fair to sentance someone who hasn't actually commited the crime YET??

 

No, because you cant know for sure that they are going to

 

Imagine it for murder.

"Hold on guys, he's got the crosshairs aimed at her head, he's about to pull the trigger, but we can't move in and bust him until he actually commits the crime!"

Attempted crimes carry the same value as commited crimes. They just aren't always as easy to prove.

 

I have a friend who works as a data analyst for the police force. He says they frequently come across people whose pattern of escalating petty crimes or minor public order offences etc fits the pattern of someone about to "go for the big time" and commit a serious act of violence or robbery. The police get very frustrated about this as they often know in advance that certain little rat-bags are on their way to doing something stupid, but there is absolutely nothing they can do. I guess that's the price we pay for our nice fairly-liberal society.

 

uh ever heard of the term conspiracy? doesnt just refer to theories involving the use of tinfoil hats.

conspiracy to commit murder is a serious charge. if there is good evidence that you were going to do it they can bust you for it. if theres no evidence that you were going to do it- i.e. you came home and battered some guy who was bonking your wife- well how can they pre emptively arrest you. since YOU didnt know you were gonna do it id say its a fair bet the police dont either.

unless you are actually talking about something like in minority report, in which case Ill leave you to discuss the merits of (crap) sci fi movie police protocls

 

In English law, you can be arrested for an attempted offence if your actions were "more than merely preparatory" to committing the crime. There was a case where a man was arrested for attempted robbery when he walked towards a post office carrying a threatening note and an imitation gun - he was let off because he hadn't actually entered the post office and started making threats etc.

It's a hard balance to strike between nipping would-be offenders in the bud and punishing mere thought crime.

 

I guess it would be a charge of attempted *whatever*. As the crime hasn't been commited and theres no victim there'd be no point charging them with the full crime

On the other hand the justice ssytem is here as a deterant to crime, if you could see the future, then THAT would be the deterant. So that confuses matters...

 

Did you read what he said?

Assume you can.

Otherwise this thread is pointless.