MovieChat Forums > Minority Report (2002) Discussion > Why can't they just break up the crime a...

Why can't they just break up the crime and let everyone go?

posted a year ago by MovieMadness (124)
13 replies | jump to latest

The main contention in this film is that we can't arrest people who commit no crime. But why do they need to arrest them at all (and inhumanely imprison them inside that vault to boot)? Can't they just break up the crime in progress, give everyone a warning, and call it a day? Cops in our universe do this all the time, and they would LOVE to have a system like this that would tell them when and where a crime is occurring. If the goal is to stop a crime from occurring and save the life of a potential victim, then the pre-crime system in the movie should work fine, minus the arrest and imprisonment. Sci-fi stories often paint a dark picture of new advances causing more harm than good. But maybe the trick is finding *correct* implementation of those advances. Nuclear physics brought us nuclear bombs, but it also invented MRI machines that save lives.

[–] Zinger (2439) 2 months ago

For the same reason killers didn't just lure their victims outside of the precogs vision boundaries...

Because then the movie wouldn't have happened.

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 2 months ago

I guess you missed the part where premeditated murders don’t work and there’s only crimes of passion at the start of the movie…

[–] Zinger (2439) 2 months ago

I guess you missed the part where that's literally the point I'm making, you simpleton.

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 2 months ago

your point was that the movie wouldn’t have happened if killers just lured their victims elsewhere. Despite the fact that the movie still would’ve happened since there’s crimes of passion.

So your point is dumb. You fool.

[–] Zinger (2439) 2 months ago

LOL no simpleton, my point was that THAT example was the same explanation for the two separate issues.

You dumb fuck. 🤣🤣

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 2 months ago

you don’t even know what your point is.

The movie woulda happened anyway, no matter the mental gymnastics you’re attempting

[–] Zinger (2439) 2 months ago

Sir, you very dumb.

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 2 months ago

^ dunning Kruger

[–] Zinger (2439) 2 months ago

Sir, you have been embarrassed by your stupidity. Don't keep shining a light on it.

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 2 months ago

^ mega-projection

[–] Zinger (2439) 2 months ago

Sir, you have been embarrassed by your stupidity. Don't keep shining a light on it.

[–] aavfreak (3386) 2 months ago

I'll add that this is especially true for crimes of passion, like the husband who walks in on his wife cheating.

The nature of incarceration is that firs it is a deterrent and second it is a prevention. People are less likely to commit a crime if they know there is a high risk that they'll be caught and imprisoned. Also, once imprisoned a criminal can no longer continue to commit crime.

In the context of this film, where it's limited to murder and that murder is impulsive and unplanned, then both items are pointless.

1. Incarceration is not a deterrent, because of the impulsive nature of the crime
2. The pre-cog warning is already preventative.
2a. Again because of the passionate, impulsive nature of the crime, the risk of the person committing the murder fades after the incident.

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 2 months ago

This dystopian system wouldn’t work just fine because they’re still basically torturing a bunch of mutants and holding them captive. The FBI agent also brings up that ethical dilemma that they’re imprisoning people who have committed no crime, but according to Anderton just because they changed the future doesn’t mean it wasn’t going to happen. Their logic could be if they let the would-be murderers go free that they’ll then just leave the city and commit crimes elsewhere.