Damn liberals. Chief Inspector Andrews had worked miracles in this city. Murders down 90 per cent. Robberies down 80 per cent. Street crime down 85 per cent. Car theft down 70 per cent. But now she was in the dock and all that good work in jeopardy.
Her police authority was the first in the country to implement the newly legalised pre-emptive justice programme. Advances in computing and AI now made it possible to predict who would commit what sort of crime in the near future. People could be tested for all sorts of reasons: as part of a random programme or on the basis of a specific suspicion. If there were found to be future criminals, then they would be arrested and punished in advance.
Andrews did not think the scheme draconian. In fact, because no crime had been committed at the time of the arrest, sentences were much more lenient. A future murderer would go on an intense programme designed to make sure they didn’t go on and kill and would only be released when tests showed they wouldn’t. Often that meant detention of less than a year. Had they been left to actually commit the crime, they would have been looking at life imprisonment and, more importantly, a person would be dead.
But still these damn liberals protested that you can’t lock someone up for something they didn’t do. Andrews grimaced, and wondered how many she could pull in for testing …
Sources: Minority Report, directed by Steven Spielberg (2002); ‘The Minority Report’ by Philip K. Dick, republished in Minority Report: The Collected Short Stories of Philip K. Dick (Gollancz, 2000)
Stated boldly, the idea that you could be locked up for crimes you have not committed looks like the epitome of injustice. But, in fact, we do already punish people for behaviour that could, but does not, lead to harm. For example, we punish reckless driving, even if no one is hurt. Conspiracy to murder is a crime, even though no murder is attempted.
So what would be wrong with punishing someone for a crime we knew they would commit, before they committed it? Consider the main justifications for punishment: reform, public protection, retribution and deterrence.
If someone is going to commit a crime, then their character is as much in need of reform as if they had actually done so. Therefore, if punishment is justified on the grounds of reform of the criminal, it is justified pre-emptively.
If someone is going to commit a crime, they are at least as much a danger to the public as if they had actually done so. Therefore, if punishment is justified on the grounds of public protection, it is justified pre-emptively.
If the aim of punishment is to deter, then making people realise they will be punished before committing the crime should deter people from even harbouring criminal thoughts.
Retribution is the one justification of punishment that doesn’t fit pre-emptive justice. However, in many ways it is the weakest of the four justifications, and arguably, reform, deterrence and protection together are justification enough.
Does that mean the case for pre-emptive justice is made? Not quite. We have not yet considered the possible negative effects of implementing such a system. Creating a society in which our thoughts are being policed may so undermine our sense of freedom and trust in the authorities that the price is just too high.
There is also the possibility that the deterrence effect could spectacularly backfire. If people fear they will be punished for thoughts they cannot help having, they may lose the sense that they are in control of their criminality. If you cannot be sure you can keep yourself on the right side of the law, you may care less about being the wrong side of it.
As our scenario is a thought experiment, we can simply stipulate that the system works perfectly. However, there are reasons for doubting such a scheme could ever become a reality. In the film of Philip K. Dick’s book Minority Report, which is developed on a similar scenario, the ultimate message is that human free will can always step in, right up to the last minute, and pull back from doing what is predicted. We may not be as free as the movie imagines. But nonetheless, there may be good reasons for thinking that human behaviour can never be predicted with 100 per cent accuracy.
See also
| 9. | Bigger Brother |
| 35. | Last resort |
| 64. | Nipping the bud |
| 77. | The scapegoat |