Precrime
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">and the ethics thereof</div>Sorry to be hogging the new topics in this forum but this question really interested me.
A study has found that <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-1242-Science-News-Examiner~y2009m8d4-Psychopaths-have-brain-structure-abnormality" target="_blank">psychopaths have a different brain structure</a>. So <i>assuming</i> that the results are replicated, and <i>assuming</i> that the correlation is close to 1:1(meaning if you have this you are pretty much guaranteed to to be at least a psychopath if not a sociopath) would it be ethical to treat people with this brain structure differently even if they haven't committed a crime yet?
A study has found that <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-1242-Science-News-Examiner~y2009m8d4-Psychopaths-have-brain-structure-abnormality" target="_blank">psychopaths have a different brain structure</a>. So <i>assuming</i> that the results are replicated, and <i>assuming</i> that the correlation is close to 1:1(meaning if you have this you are pretty much guaranteed to to be at least a psychopath if not a sociopath) would it be ethical to treat people with this brain structure differently even if they haven't committed a crime yet?
Comments
If, as you say, it's proved that these people had little choice in what they did, does that constitute a mitigating factor? Should they be punished less severely or not at all? If you say yes, then wouldn't you also be an accomplice in that crime? Shouldn't you have done something since you knew the offender was prone to criminal actions? And then we're back to you were started us. :P
If, as you say, it's proved that these people had little choice in what they did, does that constitute a mitigating factor? Should they be punished less severely or not at all? If you say yes, then wouldn't you also be an accomplice in that crime? Shouldn't you have done something since you knew the offender was prone to criminal actions? And then we're back to you were started us. :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting, no?
Wouldn't a practical implementation of such a system be somewhere between the two extremes of 24h surveillance/control and ignoring the problem? What about surgery to cut this link between the two regions(which preliminarily seems to be the cause)? This reminds me of "permanent probationers" in the Uplift series by David Brin. Wouldn't society be more reasonable if people acted rationally for the public good rather than personal power? Isn't that the holy grail of all political systems, where everything from socialism to anarchy would be effective.
It's not ethical to judge them based on the crimes they may or may not commit, but I think it's ethical to judge them based on a higher likelihood of them committing a crime, especially when there is a clear causation between psychopathy and antisocial behavior.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If, as you say, it's proved that these people had little choice in what they did, does that constitute a mitigating factor? Should they be punished less severely or not at all? If you say yes, then wouldn't you also be an accomplice in that crime? Shouldn't you have done something since you knew the offender was prone to criminal actions? And then we're back to you were started us. :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Free will is irrelevant to reducing future crime, which is what most reasonable people would agree is the primary goal of criminal punishment. Whether it exists or not makes no impact on its effectiveness.
<!--coloro:slateblue--><span style="color:slateblue"><!--/coloro-->First do no harm.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Also, precrime=poorcrime? Everyone knows the poor are more apt to commit crime. Why not arrest all of them in order to prevent crime? What about minorities? Religions? Sex? Body Mass Index? Computer usage as an indicator of anti-social behavior? This whole idea turns sour very quickly. The best we can do is try to maintain our free society by redressing crime when it occurs. You can't change human nature. But that hasn't stopped evil people from trying.
locallyunsauce specifically said we're assuming close to 1:1 correlation and repeatable results. So, we're not talking about something that makes you <i>more likely</i> to commit a crime, we're pretty sure that 99.9% of the people like you, even with complicating factors, will commit a crime.
Something interesting would be to find a system that lets them overcome this problem. Sometimes knowing is half the battle, and might cut down your likelihood of committing a crime.
But, assuming the worst case 99.9% sure even with all other methods (and 0.00001% false positives, and it's a causation not correlation) besides 1) explicit removal of the cause (cutting the brain) or 2) pre-emptive incarceration, I'm quite torn. On one hand, you're preventing a potentially heinous crime. On the other, you're removing the free will aspect. One could argue that they already don't have free will due to the nature of causation due to this condition. Following that logic, it is fine to perform one of the above mentioned actions.
However, I'm very skeptical we could even end up in this situation. The causation vs. correlation problem will persist because we can't rewind and remove this condition and then fast forward to see if they still committed a crime. Or, even checking this ahead of time (at birth and track) unless it's an extremely comprehensive study I doubt we could get even 90% correlation even with all potential extraneous factors. And even then, I'm sure due to the analog nature of... well... nature that we can't minimize false positives beyond 10% for this type of thing. But, that's perhaps a question that a future massive big brother study will prove me wrong in.
I for one believe we have a mix of nature and nurture, but that typically nurture can override nature in the areas it counts (i.e. morality and behavior, not the color of your eyes or allergies). Thus, I'm also a believer of reasonably restricted free will.
Big brother already did the study. Facial structure and body measurements are conclusive, according to many very well respected scientists. Sure, most of the research was done in the 1930's, but it's just as applicable today...
Let me get this straight - you're saying that if "big brother" told you there was a study done which could be used to determine who was going to commit crimes, and it would enforce laws against them, you'd even consider going along with it? Really?
Yes, it's ok to treat someone <i>differently</i> as in treating them as patients. But you can in no way punish someone before they've done a crime. If your crazy enough they can force you to an institution, even though you are not doing anything legally wrong and your protected legally by being crazy.
Psychopaths don't necessarily do anything criminal, even though family or work colleagues usually suffer from their behavior.
Of course, I agree with pulling people for for DUI's but it is a type of precrime none the less.
Since there is a clear connection between drunk drivers and an increase in accident rates is it that hard to imagine people wanting precrime arrests for an equally clear connection between brain chemistry/make up and psychopaths? I'm not saying there is a 'equally as clear connection,' but if it could be proven that there was it would be interesting to see how people react.
So it's not precrime because there's a law that forbids it? The way you define precrime means that precrime can never really exist. In any modern society you will have to violate a law in order to be arrested. By your definition, if you violate a law then it cannot be precrime. So under this definition if there was a law that forbids a certain type of brain chemistry, as posted in the thread, then it's not precrime anymore. My definition is one where precrime are the laws in place that allow law enforcement to punish people who place others in danger, even though the dangerous act has not happened yet.
We may disagree about what precrime is, but I think the above mentioned examples (storing propane in an unsafe manner, for example) are also examples of precrime. Nothing has happened yet, but we create laws so that we can punish people who create highly dangerous situations. Just about everyone agrees with these laws but I fail to see how because "they violate existing laws" somehow takes them out of the precrime context.
We may disagree, but I think the above mentioned examples (storing propane in an unsafe manner, for example) are also examples of precrime. Nothing has happened yet, but we create laws so that we can punish people who create highly dangerous situations. Just about everyone agrees with these laws but I fail to see how because "they violate existing laws" somehow takes them out of the precrime context.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But someone who has a genetic predisposition to crime hasn't created a highly dangerous situation. Someone else created the situation for them. It's like a reverse externality or something. The person has no choice in how they are born. If a law forbade certain types of brain chemistry, we would have people born into prisons who must remain in that prison for life.
I really wasn't taking one side or the other, I was bringing to the discussion that precrime already exists. Personally, I don't care one or or the other about the original topic.
Big brother already did the study. Facial structure and body measurements are conclusive, according to many very well respected scientists. Sure, most of the research was done in the 1930's, but it's just as applicable today...
Let me get this straight - you're saying that if "big brother" told you there was a study done which could be used to determine who was going to commit crimes, and it would enforce laws against them, you'd even consider going along with it? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) thus why this would never happen
2) we can scientifically disprove those hacks now
3) if they can prove to me that this is a deterministic cause and effect condition
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSRTzzozQ7k" target="_blank">Pre Crime Detector</a>