conmag9 said:
With the success rate they had? Absolutely.
But what's this? Innocent people are being incarcerated on a very low percentage! Why, it's not at all like our current justice system where the guilty are ALWAYS convicted and the innocent are ALWAYS let free! Oh wait...
Either method has a risk of accidental incarceration. The precrime system actually seems LESS likely than traditional methods of investigation. And it's better in that it stops the crime from happening, rather than just punishing it after the fact.
"Sorry Mr. Example, we totally knew we could have saved your wife, but it wouldn't have been right to arrest the guy for something he was only about to do". If that were said to me, they'd have to send in a second team for murder, at which point I would say the exact same thing to them.
Exactly, exactly, exactly. This was the point I made in a previous post. If you have the same number of false positives in both systems, but one system actually stops murder, you go with the one that's effective.
Also, it's stupid to compare this discussion to airport security because acts of terror are so, so rare. Murder in Washington D.C. on the other hand, is a daily occurrence. And the numbers argument made in that example is equally unfitting because the 99% can't be applied to the general population, only to the visions that the precognitives have, which, according to the movie, are highly accurate in nature. And the movie even said, the "precogs are never wrong" they just "occasionally disagree."
I think one problem with this discussion is that few people understand the nature of the debate. To understand it, one has to understand the movie. Think about it. Over six years, precrime only incarcerated 1100 people but it stopped murder altogether. 1100 people across the whole of D.C. for six years? You know that system isn't just locking people up at random. D.C. will probably have near that many murders in the next two years. The point is, the system works near to perfectly as any human device.
