Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
I know it's a really difficult concept, but criminal justice isn't about punishing people for commiting crimes. It's about PREVENTING people from commiting crimes. You arrest and punish people to set an example for the community. Here is where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior lies. What in the world does a program like this hope to accomplish? Maybe we should stick the psychologists in the prisons dealing with rehabilitation and the sociologists on the street dealing with criminal justice.

If that's what criminal justice means as a technical term, then I don't like criminal justice. I don't trust systems based on prevention (cf. the capn considering the worst-case scenario).

Quote:Original post by MDI
Presumably nobody posting in this thread has a problem with the idea of "sex offenders registers".

I see sex offender registers as, at best, the lesser of two evils. It would be worse, knowing the rates at which sex offenders become repeat offenders, to not make others aware of the situation. However, I see punishment in terms of "just deserts" and, therefore, do not like the stigma that follows someone once they've paid their debt, especially if they've changed or are making an honest effort to change.

Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
Correlation does not suggest causation

However, in actuarial justice (or actuarial anything) we only care about correlation and not causation. Causation is only important in that it has a higher correlation than other factors.

Quote:Original post by Conner McCloud
Seeing as how the OP mentions P Dick, but the discussion immediately shifted to T Cruise, I thought I'd mentions how the original text went down. Naturally, spoilers abound, but it takes all of half an hour to finish the story, so it doesn't really matter.

In it, Tom Cruise's character goes ahead and kills the person he was supposed to kill, because if he did otherwise the precrime system would be invalidated and shut down. So everything kept running just fine, and the crime free society remained crime free.

It was an interesting read, although on oddly shaped paper.

CM

I'm glad somebody else read the short story...

Spoilers for the book:

also, if i remember the short story correctly, the "majority" report was created by viewing 2 seperate time periods.

The inital report was that he would kill somebody (which he would have done had he not read the report). The second report was viewed slightly farther in the future after "Tom Cruise" had gotten the inital report and decided not to kill the guy (thus the "false positive"). The last report, and ultimately acurate report, seemed to cooberate the first report, saying that he would in fact kill the guy, however that report takes place even farther beyond the first two reports in the future, when his character had decided to actually kill the guy he's supposed to for the greater good of the system, and it was ultimately the only option left.

All three reports were accurate, but were viewed from different time frames. The only reason why he was different, not because he actually had free-will, but because he was in the position to have access to the first report.

But because the two reports "appeared" to agree, and the last did not there was a "Minority report", however, not so much really... It had more to do with the psychic sensitvity of the viewers. And possibly the crudeness by which the data was analyzed.

They completely ignored this part of the story in the movie. Which makes me wonder why they even called it the same name, because really the stories aren't related at all, other than the concept of "pre-crime".

What really disturbs me about this type of report is the apathy of the populous. No one group cares enough to ever stand up and say something and make a difference. We need another Woodstock, except one where people actually pay attention afterwards, and not like the other ones either, those are about rape and bad music.

<Buffalo Springfield>
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
</Buffalo Springfield>

...and so forth.

Quote:Original post by kryat
They completely ignored this part of the story in the movie. Which makes me wonder why they even called it the same name, because really the stories aren't related at all, other than the concept of "pre-crime".

And "I, Robot" had little to do with the book as well. It even seems to contradict the book. However, I still enjoyed the movie and I do not wonder at why the call it by the same name.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by kryat
They completely ignored this part of the story in the movie. Which makes me wonder why they even called it the same name, because really the stories aren't related at all, other than the concept of "pre-crime".

And "I, Robot" had little to do with the book as well. It even seems to contradict the book. However, I still enjoyed the movie and I do not wonder at why the call it by the same name.

Yeah, Hollywood rapes classic novels. How about "War of the Worlds"? One of the central themes of the novel was the inability of the aliens to really function without the aid of their machines. In the movie, they were more "Signs"-esque, scary and big. What a gyp.

Quote:Original post by CamIsGod
<Buffalo Springfield>
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
</Buffalo Springfield>

There's something happening here.
What it is ain't exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there,
Telling me I got to beware.

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.
Stop, now, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.

Quote:Original post by CamIsGod

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by kryat
They completely ignored this part of the story in the movie. Which makes me wonder why they even called it the same name, because really the stories aren't related at all, other than the concept of "pre-crime".

And "I, Robot" had little to do with the book as well. It even seems to contradict the book. However, I still enjoyed the movie and I do not wonder at why the call it by the same name.

Yeah, Hollywood rapes classic novels. How about "War of the Worlds"? One of the central themes of the novel was the inability of the aliens to really function without the aid of their machines. In the movie, they were more "Signs"-esque, scary and big. What a gyp.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I thought "I, Robot" was a good movie. [smile]