History Headscratchers / MinorityReport

22nd Feb '16 7:14:09 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I've read a number of robbery cases where the criminal gets the money, but then can't go through and ends up giving the money back. That's just petty mugging...

to:

*** ** I've read a number of robbery cases where the criminal gets the money, but then can't go through and ends up giving the money back. That's just petty mugging...
22nd Feb '16 6:45:17 PM CockroachCharlie
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** I've read a number of robbery cases where the criminal gets the money, but then can't go through and ends up giving the money back. That's just petty mugging...
2nd Feb '16 6:53:49 AM FlashSteps
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Based on the fact that his eyes are different colors from that point on, I always assumed that yes, he was permanently blinded in that eye.
** The eyes were a different color because they where from someone of Japanese descent, he was not blinded but it hurt.

to:

** Based on the fact that his eyes are different colors colours from that point on, I always assumed that yes, he was permanently blinded in that eye.
** The eyes were a different color colour because they where from someone of Japanese descent, he was not blinded but it hurt.hurt.
** I think that the troper above you was suggesting that the eyes were different colours from ''each other'' rather than from his original set he had replaced, as you had meant. I'm not sure if his new left and right were actually different colours, so I'd have to watch it again to check.



** Plus someone might finally notice that Anderton ''couldn't have killed'' Witwer because he left his gun - with which Witwer was killed - at Crow's appartment. (This is my real huge Just Bugs Me with an otherwise fine movie, and my only explanation is, as Witwer himself points out, that the Pre-Cops don't have much classic murder investigation experience. Which is kind of a lame excuse.)

to:

** Plus someone might finally notice that Anderton ''couldn't have killed'' Witwer because he left his gun - with which Witwer was killed - at Crow's appartment. (This is my real huge Just Bugs Me headscratcher with an otherwise fine movie, and my only explanation is, as Witwer himself points out, that the Pre-Cops don't have much classic murder investigation experience. Which is kind of a lame excuse.)



** As of 2015, you now have your [[Series/MinorityReport sequel in the form of a television series following one of the other (male) precogs.]]



* One that just occurred to this troper: why did Precrime arrest Anderton near the end of the film? It's been established that their jurisdiction only encompasses future murders; the MPDC (who are established to still exist in the film's opening sequence) still has jurisdiction over regular crimes. At this point in the film, Anderton is already being held responsible for [[spoiler: the deaths of both Leo Crow and Danny Witer]]. Surely he would hence fall under the DCPD's jurisdiction?

to:

* One that just occurred to this troper: me: why did Precrime arrest Anderton near the end of the film? It's been established that their jurisdiction only encompasses future murders; the MPDC (who are established to still exist in the film's opening sequence) still has jurisdiction over regular crimes. At this point in the film, Anderton is already being held responsible for [[spoiler: the deaths of both Leo Crow and Danny Witer]]. Surely he would hence fall under the DCPD's jurisdiction?
2nd Oct '15 8:05:30 AM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** The eyes were a different color because they where from someone of Japanese descent, he was not blinded but it hurt.

to:

*** ** The eyes were a different color because they where from someone of Japanese descent, he was not blinded but it hurt.



*** What if he got someone else to kill her who was never in DC?
**** That's the reason he hired that guy who ''intended'' to murder her.

to:

*** ** What if he got someone else to kill her who was never in DC?
**** ** That's the reason he hired that guy who ''intended'' to murder her.



*** So, I felt like that was what made it feel so incongruous. It seemed like the people who ran the city's computer networks were on the fucking ball. Anderton becomes a wanted murderer BOOM, every newspaper in the city has his face on it and every eye scanner is on the lookout for him. The precops are on point, all the time, they swoop in and save the day. It seemed like the city was portrayed as far too competent for a fuckup like that to happen. Then again, the precops were on the ball when they were being led by Anderton, maybe they're lost without him.

to:

*** ** So, I felt like that was what made it feel so incongruous. It seemed like the people who ran the city's computer networks were on the fucking ball. Anderton becomes a wanted murderer BOOM, every newspaper in the city has his face on it and every eye scanner is on the lookout for him. The precops are on point, all the time, they swoop in and save the day. It seemed like the city was portrayed as far too competent for a fuckup like that to happen. Then again, the precops were on the ball when they were being led by Anderton, maybe they're lost without him.



*** Possibly they'd been ''hoping'' he might try to break in a second time, to grab the Twins as well, in which case they'd let him bypass the first layer of security and then nab him as soon as he attempted to access the Temple. The possibility that his ex-wife might drop by to steal data instead of enter the Temple wasn't taken into consideration.

to:

*** ** Possibly they'd been ''hoping'' he might try to break in a second time, to grab the Twins as well, in which case they'd let him bypass the first layer of security and then nab him as soon as he attempted to access the Temple. The possibility that his ex-wife might drop by to steal data instead of enter the Temple wasn't taken into consideration.



*** Given that Pre-Cops rely on the visions to preempt murders and the whole purpose of Pre-Crime is to stop pre-crime before it occurs, it is very likely that the Pre-Cops focused most if not all their training on quickly identifying the target's location and stopping the crime and there was probably little if any training on solving crimes after the crime occurred. This makes sense not only because if Pre-Crime works then training to solve crimes after the crime would be irrelevant because there are no crimes to solve but also because Burgess would want to hinder any future effort by his own men to discover his own crime.
*** Well consider that Witwer did take the gun and was still killed by it, albeit not by Anderton. Without the precogs, how were they supposed to know?

to:

*** ** Given that Pre-Cops rely on the visions to preempt murders and the whole purpose of Pre-Crime is to stop pre-crime before it occurs, it is very likely that the Pre-Cops focused most if not all their training on quickly identifying the target's location and stopping the crime and there was probably little if any training on solving crimes after the crime occurred. This makes sense not only because if Pre-Crime works then training to solve crimes after the crime would be irrelevant because there are no crimes to solve but also because Burgess would want to hinder any future effort by his own men to discover his own crime.
*** ** Well consider that Witwer did take the gun and was still killed by it, albeit not by Anderton. Without the precogs, how were they supposed to know?



*** The movie goes over this when Witwer is talking to Anderton. Remember the "the ball was going to fall before you caught it" thing? It's not all that different from if, say, a cop happened upon an attempted murder while he was on patrol. He could stop the death, but it certainly would have happened if he wasn't there. Only real difference here, when you think about it, is you have a preemptive 911 call.

to:

*** ** The movie goes over this when Witwer is talking to Anderton. Remember the "the ball was going to fall before you caught it" thing? It's not all that different from if, say, a cop happened upon an attempted murder while he was on patrol. He could stop the death, but it certainly would have happened if he wasn't there. Only real difference here, when you think about it, is you have a preemptive 911 call.



*** No, they ''predicted'' a murder. It ''turned into'' a suicide when Anderton refused to fire. There's notable differences between the initial prediction and what actually happens.
**** It seems so at first, but then they discover Agatha in the vision. If the vision included Agatha, than it was a suicide.
*** It's how all the other cases work too: they were all going to be murders until they were prevented. This was just an odd case where the prevention ended up looking almost identical to the murder that would have transpired.
**** That's exactly the catch - the others ''were going'' to become murderers, i.e. they had a murderous intent, wether defined or not. The jealous guy in the beginning must've had at least some vague ideas that he might return home, find his wife cheating on him and kill her, and the precogs detected these ideas. But Anderton had '''no''' murderous intent against Crow before the moment of the precognition '''whatsoever''' - there was nothing for the precogs to work with. We inevitably fall into an infinite recursive loop: The precogs could only make a prediction after they sensed Anderton's intention to work out the situation that was instigated solely by the precognition itself.
**** Yes he did. Anderton had long fantasized about killing whoever stole his son. Just like the jealous husband didn't need to know the name or face of his cuckolder until catching him in the act, Anderton didn't need to know who the kidnapper was until stumbling on a room full of evidence that Crow was that man.
**** ^^You've fallen into the most common misconception about this movie, thinking the pre-cogs read minds. They don't read minds, they read ''the future''. The glasses-guy at the beginning didn't have any murderous intent before he found his wife in bed with another man. That's why Pre-Crime identified his case as a crime of passion rather than premeditated murder. The pre-cogs saw a vision of the future wherein the glasses-guy went back into the house to find his glasses, found his wife cheating on him, and was so filled with jealous rage that he murdered them both with a pair of scissors.

to:

*** ** No, they ''predicted'' a murder. It ''turned into'' a suicide when Anderton refused to fire. There's notable differences between the initial prediction and what actually happens.
**** ** It seems so at first, but then they discover Agatha in the vision. If the vision included Agatha, than it was a suicide.
*** ** It's how all the other cases work too: they were all going to be murders until they were prevented. This was just an odd case where the prevention ended up looking almost identical to the murder that would have transpired.
**** ** That's exactly the catch - the others ''were going'' to become murderers, i.e. they had a murderous intent, wether defined or not. The jealous guy in the beginning must've had at least some vague ideas that he might return home, find his wife cheating on him and kill her, and the precogs detected these ideas. But Anderton had '''no''' murderous intent against Crow before the moment of the precognition '''whatsoever''' - there was nothing for the precogs to work with. We inevitably fall into an infinite recursive loop: The precogs could only make a prediction after they sensed Anderton's intention to work out the situation that was instigated solely by the precognition itself.
**** ** Yes he did. Anderton had long fantasized about killing whoever stole his son. Just like the jealous husband didn't need to know the name or face of his cuckolder until catching him in the act, Anderton didn't need to know who the kidnapper was until stumbling on a room full of evidence that Crow was that man.
**** ** ^^You've fallen into the most common misconception about this movie, thinking the pre-cogs read minds. They don't read minds, they read ''the future''. The glasses-guy at the beginning didn't have any murderous intent before he found his wife in bed with another man. That's why Pre-Crime identified his case as a crime of passion rather than premeditated murder. The pre-cogs saw a vision of the future wherein the glasses-guy went back into the house to find his glasses, found his wife cheating on him, and was so filled with jealous rage that he murdered them both with a pair of scissors.



*** The murder prediction has not just an "expiration date" - '''it has a deadline'''. Had he laid low and waited untill the countdown runs out, he could no longer be accused of "future murder" because it would no longer be future.
*** That would be irrelevant. As soon as the the precogs got the vision, Anderton was "guilty" of future crime. Yes, the crime wouldn't actually occur. But that is what happens with EVERY OTHER precrime. The precrimes never occur, they are always prevented by the Precrime unit, that is the whole point of the system. People are put to sleep because they would have committed murder, not because they did. Anderton would have killed, so he is guilty of precrime. He may have changed his mind after knowing the precogs "caught" him in the future act, and run away instead. But surely lots of people run away when the see Precrime on their tail, that doesn't help, you can't reduce your sentence by running away instead of giving yourself up.

to:

*** ** The murder prediction has not just an "expiration date" - '''it has a deadline'''. Had he laid low and waited untill the countdown runs out, he could no longer be accused of "future murder" because it would no longer be future.
*** ** That would be irrelevant. As soon as the the precogs got the vision, Anderton was "guilty" of future crime. Yes, the crime wouldn't actually occur. But that is what happens with EVERY OTHER precrime. The precrimes never occur, they are always prevented by the Precrime unit, that is the whole point of the system. People are put to sleep because they would have committed murder, not because they did. Anderton would have killed, so he is guilty of precrime. He may have changed his mind after knowing the precogs "caught" him in the future act, and run away instead. But surely lots of people run away when the see Precrime on their tail, that doesn't help, you can't reduce your sentence by running away instead of giving yourself up.



*** To wit the precogs spend most of their days writhing through nightmare echoes when their sensory range is only a few dozen miles in radius-the metro DC area. Imagine the sensory overload if they tried to monitor the entire country!

to:

*** ** To wit the precogs spend most of their days writhing through nightmare echoes when their sensory range is only a few dozen miles in radius-the metro DC area. Imagine the sensory overload if they tried to monitor the entire country!



*** It's pretty clear from his dialogue with his wife that he suspects this already and purposely left his glasses there to see if he was correct
*** It seems pretty clear that -- the tour guide's cheery spiel notwithstanding -- the precogs aren't seen as fully human, but more like talented chattel.
*** Of course it's a crime of passion. ''The movie comes right out and says it's a crime of passion, and that's what [[RedAlert Red Balls]] mean.''

to:

*** ** It's pretty clear from his dialogue with his wife that he suspects this already and purposely left his glasses there to see if he was correct
*** ** It seems pretty clear that -- the tour guide's cheery spiel notwithstanding -- the precogs aren't seen as fully human, but more like talented chattel.
*** ** Of course it's a crime of passion. ''The movie comes right out and says it's a crime of passion, and that's what [[RedAlert Red Balls]] mean.''



*** Consensus (based on the main page, and the synopsis on IMDB) is: Anderton's addicted to neuroin. "Whiff" would be a street name, then. I interpreted it differently, and contend the film doesn't firmly clarify the matter. (During Anderton's time as a fugitive, we never observe him dosing; could he have managed such extraordinary efforts while undergoing cold-turkey withdrawal? If there was some rapid-detox method, then let's see the AppliedPhlebotinum; the film showed off plenty, whether or not the plot demanded it.) But I can hardly ignore the fact: I appear to be alone in my opinion.

to:

*** ** Consensus (based on the main page, and the synopsis on IMDB) is: Anderton's addicted to neuroin. "Whiff" would be a street name, then. I interpreted it differently, and contend the film doesn't firmly clarify the matter. (During Anderton's time as a fugitive, we never observe him dosing; could he have managed such extraordinary efforts while undergoing cold-turkey withdrawal? If there was some rapid-detox method, then let's see the AppliedPhlebotinum; the film showed off plenty, whether or not the plot demanded it.) But I can hardly ignore the fact: I appear to be alone in my opinion.



*** ... Wow. Did you ''watch'' the movie? The founder kills ''one person'', he doesn't "go around thrill-killing". And he does it for a very specific reason (see below).

to:

*** ...** ... Wow. Did you ''watch'' the movie? The founder kills ''one person'', he doesn't "go around thrill-killing". And he does it for a very specific reason (see below).



*** It's been a while since I saw this but iirc, Burgess killed Agatha's mother because he had an affair with her and she wanted to go public. It wasn't a "thrill kill". As for the murder, he set it up to look like someone else had done it.
**** The official {{In-Universe}} explaination is a technicality that the precogs often see echoes of previous visions, so Burgess (who knows this) sets up a fake murder, making the real murder look like an echo of the fake murder (a more detailed version of the above 'set it up to look like someone else' story)
*** It had nothing to do with an affair. This is his ''only kill'', which the OP seems to not realize. What happened was the Precog's mother had previously given up the kid because she was a drug addict. Then the mother got clean and wanted her daughter back, which would ruin Precrime because Agatha was needed for it to work. ''That'' is why the founder killed her.

to:

*** ** It's been a while since I saw this but iirc, Burgess killed Agatha's mother because he had an affair with her and she wanted to go public. It wasn't a "thrill kill". As for the murder, he set it up to look like someone else had done it.
**** ** The official {{In-Universe}} explaination explanation is a technicality that the precogs often see echoes of previous visions, so Burgess (who knows this) sets up a fake murder, making the real murder look like an echo of the fake murder (a more detailed version of the above 'set it up to look like someone else' story)
*** ** It had nothing to do with an affair. This is his ''only kill'', which the OP seems to not realize. What happened was the Precog's mother had previously given up the kid because she was a drug addict. Then the mother got clean and wanted her daughter back, which would ruin Precrime because Agatha was needed for it to work. ''That'' is why the founder killed her.



*** No, it's still quite ridiculous. For a number of reasons (among which the inherent danger of energy storage), it makes sense for anything to be built without whatever stores its energy, be it batteries, fuel or what have you. This has always been the case, and it seems unlikely to change in the future. Energy storage would be the last thing to be added to the car, once everything else tests out.
**** Cars in Anderton's time can drive themselves. It's probably standard procedure for the car, immediately after assembly, to drive itself out of the factory to whichever dealership or private buyer it's intended for. No need to haul them around on car-carriers or keep parking-lots full of them on the factory premises, awaiting shipment.
***** It [[ProductPLacement was made to promote Lexus]].
**** There's also the odd fact that InAWorld where everyone's eyes are scanned at every turn there's no device out there on the road scanning license plates and flagging cars without ID.

to:

*** ** No, it's still quite ridiculous. For a number of reasons (among which the inherent danger of energy storage), it makes sense for anything to be built without whatever stores its energy, be it batteries, fuel or what have you. This has always been the case, and it seems unlikely to change in the future. Energy storage would be the last thing to be added to the car, once everything else tests out.
**** ** Cars in Anderton's time can drive themselves. It's probably standard procedure for the car, immediately after assembly, to drive itself out of the factory to whichever dealership or private buyer it's intended for. No need to haul them around on car-carriers or keep parking-lots full of them on the factory premises, awaiting shipment.
***** ** It [[ProductPLacement was made to promote Lexus]].
**** ** There's also the odd fact that InAWorld where everyone's eyes are scanned at every turn there's no device out there on the road scanning license plates and flagging cars without ID.



*** [[IdiotBall Oh]]

to:

*** [[IdiotBall Oh]]



* The system prooved fallible (what a shock), so they released '''all''' the culprits it helped arrest. [[FlatWhat What]]. Excuse me, isn't it a wee bit radical? Ok, maybe some of the prisoners might be innocent, but others were caught literaly red-handed, like the jealous guy in the beginning!

to:

* The system prooved proved fallible (what a shock), so they released '''all''' the culprits it helped arrest. [[FlatWhat What]]. Excuse me, isn't it a wee bit radical? Ok, maybe some of the prisoners might be innocent, but others were caught literaly literally red-handed, like the jealous guy in the beginning!



*** That is, frankly, a ludicrous conclusion to come to after seeing that scene. You don't pick up a pair of scissors and walk menacingly toward someone in a fit of rage over finding your wife cheating just to say, "Oops! Just kidding!" The clear intention there is he was about to commit murder.
*** It's not impossible to change one's mind in such an emotional situation, especially about MURDER. It takes a whole lot of gall to even attempt to murder another human being. It shouldn't be considered too unrealistic for someone in his situation to, perhaps, after picking up the scissors, have an emotional breakdown and never actually attack anyone.
*** Howard picking up the scissors to kill them ''was'' his emotional breakdown. His intent is clear from the scene and his manner in it. There's nothing in the scene suggesting that he's not going to go through with it.

to:

*** ** That is, frankly, a ludicrous conclusion to come to after seeing that scene. You don't pick up a pair of scissors and walk menacingly toward someone in a fit of rage over finding your wife cheating just to say, "Oops! Just kidding!" The clear intention there is he was about to commit murder.
*** ** It's not impossible to change one's mind in such an emotional situation, especially about MURDER. It takes a whole lot of gall to even attempt to murder another human being. It shouldn't be considered too unrealistic for someone in his situation to, perhaps, after picking up the scissors, have an emotional breakdown and never actually attack anyone.
*** ** Howard picking up the scissors to kill them ''was'' his emotional breakdown. His intent is clear from the scene and his manner in it. There's nothing in the scene suggesting that he's not going to go through with it.



-->'''Boss:''' Johnson, have those TPS reports on my desk by 8 am Monday!
-->'''Johnson:''' But it's 4:00 on Friday and I'll be out of town at my mother's funeral all weekend.
-->'''Boss:''' I don't care. Your job is more important than an old hag's funeral.
-->'''Johnson:''' ''thinking'' I wonder how many people would smile at your funeral...
-->'''Precrime:''' ''bursts in'' You're under arrest!
*** Except the original point of contention was about the people caught "red handed". Like the guy at the beginning who was caught with a pair of scissors in his hand about to stab his wife. That's attempted murder. He should not have been released. Also, it takes a lot more than just thinking "man, I'd really like to kill that guy" to get Pre-crime on your tail. At the beginning of the movie they outright say that someone who thinks about committing murder, wants to commit murder, intends to commit murder, but doesn't actually go through with it will not be detected by the pre-cogs. They don't read minds, they read the future. So it's not like Pre-crime would be randomly bursting in on anyone who happened to have a nasty thought about their asshole boss.
*** I don't like the use of the word ''all'' either but I guess they were just trying to wrap things up. I think that cases where they can't manage to figure out where it's going to be until the would-be murderer is in the process of trying to kill them thus making an attempted murder charge stick would be in the minority or else they'd have a lot lower success rate. All the people they arrested for premeditated murder would be off the hook since they had plenty of time to deal with that but people like the man from the beginning shouldn't be. Had they gotten there faster and arrested him as he laid crying on the floor listening to his wife and her lover together then he'd have to be let go, but he was in the process of plunging the scissors into his wife when he was interrupted.
**** The courts could possibly be tied up for years otherwise, sorting out who counts as worthy of being let go. It's not a perfect answer (in-story or out), though, I'll grant.
**** For all we know, they ''did'' charge the cuckold with attempted murder after he'd been acquitted of future murder. If the courts negated the entire concept of "pre-crime", double jeopardy might not apply in his case, particularly if he was still awaiting trial when Anderton disproved the system.

to:

-->'''Boss:''' --->'''Boss:''' Johnson, have those TPS reports on my desk by 8 am Monday!
-->'''Johnson:'''
Monday!\\
'''Johnson:'''
But it's 4:00 on Friday and I'll be out of town at my mother's funeral all weekend.
-->'''Boss:'''
weekend.\\
'''Boss:'''
I don't care. Your job is more important than an old hag's funeral.
-->'''Johnson:''' ''thinking''
funeral.\\
'''Johnson:''' ''[thinking]''
I wonder how many people would smile at your funeral...
-->'''Precrime:''' ''bursts in''
funeral...\\
'''Precrime:''' ''[bursts in]''
You're under arrest!
*** ** Except the original point of contention was about the people caught "red handed". Like the guy at the beginning who was caught with a pair of scissors in his hand about to stab his wife. That's attempted murder. He should not have been released. Also, it takes a lot more than just thinking "man, I'd really like to kill that guy" to get Pre-crime on your tail. At the beginning of the movie they outright say that someone who thinks about committing murder, wants to commit murder, intends to commit murder, but doesn't actually go through with it will not be detected by the pre-cogs. They don't read minds, they read the future. So it's not like Pre-crime would be randomly bursting in on anyone who happened to have a nasty thought about their asshole boss.
*** ** I don't like the use of the word ''all'' either but I guess they were just trying to wrap things up. I think that cases where they can't manage to figure out where it's going to be until the would-be murderer is in the process of trying to kill them thus making an attempted murder charge stick would be in the minority or else they'd have a lot lower success rate. All the people they arrested for premeditated murder would be off the hook since they had plenty of time to deal with that but people like the man from the beginning shouldn't be. Had they gotten there faster and arrested him as he laid crying on the floor listening to his wife and her lover together then he'd have to be let go, but he was in the process of plunging the scissors into his wife when he was interrupted.
**** ** The courts could possibly be tied up for years otherwise, sorting out who counts as worthy of being let go. It's not a perfect answer (in-story or out), though, I'll grant.
**** ** For all we know, they ''did'' charge the cuckold with attempted murder after he'd been acquitted of future murder. If the courts negated the entire concept of "pre-crime", double jeopardy might not apply in his case, particularly if he was still awaiting trial when Anderton disproved the system.



*** I think the premise behind Pre-Crime was that the pre-cogs detect what is ''absolutely guaranteed to happen'' unless someone with foreknowledge of the events, in this case the Pre-Crime office, intervenes to stop it. In other words, if you are pegged as a perpetrator by the pre-cogs you are automatically destined for prison because they've proven you were guaranteed to become a murderer. If it could be shown that a person pegged as a future murderer could choose ''not'' to kill the future victim of his own free will, then all those previous arrests and indeed the entire premise upon which the Pre-Crime system was built are suddenly in question.

to:

*** ** I think the premise behind Pre-Crime was that the pre-cogs detect what is ''absolutely guaranteed to happen'' unless someone with foreknowledge of the events, in this case the Pre-Crime office, intervenes to stop it. In other words, if you are pegged as a perpetrator by the pre-cogs you are automatically destined for prison because they've proven you were guaranteed to become a murderer. If it could be shown that a person pegged as a future murderer could choose ''not'' to kill the future victim of his own free will, then all those previous arrests and indeed the entire premise upon which the Pre-Crime system was built are suddenly in question.



*** Who says anything about releasing? Attempted murder is still a crime.
**** Yes, but it's not a life sentence. Not even most of those murders are a life sentence. Regardless, the reason they're kept in a vegtative state rather than a conventional prison is never explained.
**** Attempted murder may be a crime, but what about Anderton? If he had been arrested right after the Precogs named him, he would be serving a life sentence for what was still, in theory, a completely hypothetical situation.
***** Anderton's predicted murder was a premeditated crime. Obviously in ''that'' case the person would be caught and released (or at least detained until the deadline for his hypothetical murder had passed) but in the case of the glasses-guy who stabbed his wife to death, they caught him with the scissors ''in his hand'' a half-second before he plunged them into his wife's chest. Nothing hypothetical about that, he was absolutely guilty of attempted murder. The same would go for all the other "red balls".
*** Does it have to be? Instead of having to employ hundreds of guards, cooks, and other employees, you can keep an eye on thousands of sleeping prisoners with one guy at a keyboard. And both sides benefit: Society has zero murder rates, the prisoners get to fulfill their darkest fantasies in VR. [[{{Utilitarianism}} The greatest good for the greatest number.]]
**** Yes, it'd better, because if people arrested by Pre-cops underwent the normal judicial procedure and were put in a normal jail with a fixed term, it'd make the system much less vulnerable and unappealing, thus they'd much more likely be able to preserve it.

to:

*** ** Who says anything about releasing? Attempted murder is still a crime.
**** ** Yes, but it's not a life sentence. Not even most of those murders are a life sentence. Regardless, the reason they're kept in a vegtative state rather than a conventional prison is never explained.
**** ** Attempted murder may be a crime, but what about Anderton? If he had been arrested right after the Precogs named him, he would be serving a life sentence for what was still, in theory, a completely hypothetical situation.
***** ** Anderton's predicted murder was a premeditated crime. Obviously in ''that'' case the person would be caught and released (or at least detained until the deadline for his hypothetical murder had passed) but in the case of the glasses-guy who stabbed his wife to death, they caught him with the scissors ''in his hand'' a half-second before he plunged them into his wife's chest. Nothing hypothetical about that, he was absolutely guilty of attempted murder. The same would go for all the other "red balls".
*** ** Does it have to be? Instead of having to employ hundreds of guards, cooks, and other employees, you can keep an eye on thousands of sleeping prisoners with one guy at a keyboard. And both sides benefit: Society has zero murder rates, the prisoners get to fulfill their darkest fantasies in VR. [[{{Utilitarianism}} The greatest good for the greatest number.]]
**** ** Yes, it'd better, because if people arrested by Pre-cops underwent the normal judicial procedure and were put in a normal jail with a fixed term, it'd make the system much less vulnerable and unappealing, thus they'd much more likely be able to preserve it.



*** But how exactly is killing in self-defense (or in defense of someone else's life) less spontaneous than murdering someone as a crime of passion (the "red balls")? A 'justified' killing like that doesn't necessarily mean a heated fisticuff, but might for example be targeted towards someone who is calmly aiming a gun at an innocent victim, giving a fair amount of time to think and decide about it.
**** In which case, the precogs would have already foreseen the person aiming the gun at the innocent victim, rendering the self-defense unnecessary as Pre-Crime will have already dealt with the situation. And spontaneity does make a difference; spontaneous events are either harder to detect or harder to predict, which is why the red balls show up only a few minutes before the actual event.
*** The Precogs seem to detect the emotion as well as the action. A killing in self-defense doesn't have the same emotions behind it as a murder, and the emotion behind a pre-meditated murder is apparently what lets them detect it earlier than a crime of passion.

to:

*** ** But how exactly is killing in self-defense (or in defense of someone else's life) less spontaneous than murdering someone as a crime of passion (the "red balls")? A 'justified' killing like that doesn't necessarily mean a heated fisticuff, but might for example be targeted towards someone who is calmly aiming a gun at an innocent victim, giving a fair amount of time to think and decide about it.
**** ** In which case, the precogs would have already foreseen the person aiming the gun at the innocent victim, rendering the self-defense unnecessary as Pre-Crime will have already dealt with the situation. And spontaneity does make a difference; spontaneous events are either harder to detect or harder to predict, which is why the red balls show up only a few minutes before the actual event.
*** ** The Precogs seem to detect the emotion as well as the action. A killing in self-defense doesn't have the same emotions behind it as a murder, and the emotion behind a pre-meditated murder is apparently what lets them detect it earlier than a crime of passion.



*** Actually, she starts the monologue with Sean's name and describes events that happened before he as kidnapped. As she goes into the alternate timeline, she continues to use the pronoun "he".
*** Alternately, wasn't Agatha born before Shawn? She could have seen [[WhatCouldHaveBeen a Minority Report]] the day that Shawn got killed, and she's telling the story to his parents now.

to:

*** ** Actually, she starts the monologue with Sean's name and describes events that happened before he as kidnapped. As she goes into the alternate timeline, she continues to use the pronoun "he".
*** ** Alternately, wasn't Agatha born before Shawn? She could have seen [[WhatCouldHaveBeen a Minority Report]] the day that Shawn got killed, and she's telling the story to his parents now.



*** In the interests of justice and due process it would be better to charge them with something. For one thing, it's stated that a premeditated murder can be predicted up to 72 hours in advance, and in the US you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged with a crime. For another, grabbing people off the streets, detaining them for X amount of time, and then "putting them on probation" for days or weeks afterward is a system that's just ''begging'' to be abused. Especially if you don't even have to officially charge them with a crime to do it. What's stopping Pre-Crime from targeting a political opponent and detaining them on suspicion of a future murder in order to smear their reputation?
**** Because whenever they analyze the previsions, they always have the chief justice of the supreme court and a criminal justice professor witnessing the procedure, not to mention, every prevision is stored for future reference. It would be incredibly difficult to get a supreme court justice on board with an illegal smear campaign and impossible to fake a prevision.
**** Also locking people away indefinitely is EXACTLY what pre-crime is doing. If you attempt or conspire to murder now, even a crime of passion (i.e. the victim survives the attack) you are charged with the crime. Most western countries provide a defined path of rehabilitation. If the Pre-cogs are considered good enough to put people in statis indefinately, and arguement here about the law is moot, as we know that intention to commit murder is recognised as a crime in 2054 DC.
*** Charging those people with "something" would be the exact opposite of justice and due process. It is, in fact, entirely against those very concepts. What you mean is "in the interests of safety and making people feel better", which are not the same thing at all. The whole point of releasing the people who had been convicted of precrime was that they ''hadn't actually done anything''. Whether or not they had the intent to, whether or not they were going to go through with it, they HAD NOT done anything at the point they were arrested. That was essentially the whole point of precrime being flawed... these people were being convicted of '''thought crimes''', in essence. The fact that so many people on this page are perfectly okay with prosecuting people for thoughts they had but had not actually followed through on (whether of their own agency or someone else's) is disturbing as '''''fuck'''''.
*** Attempted murder is, in fact, a crime, so yes, the people that Precrime tackle at the last moment before a crime of passion can be charged with something. Conspiracy to commit murder is, in fact, a crime, so yes, the people that Precrime grabbed for premeditated murder can be charged with something. Just because nobody actually died does not mean the person holding the knife can't be charged with anything. And it's not about "thoughts they had," it's about things they had set into motion to do. Not by thought, but by action. The intervention may be extreme (life sentence without a trial ''is'' extreme), but intervention and charges are definitely warranted.

to:

*** ** In the interests of justice and due process it would be better to charge them with something. For one thing, it's stated that a premeditated murder can be predicted up to 72 hours in advance, and in the US you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged with a crime. For another, grabbing people off the streets, detaining them for X amount of time, and then "putting them on probation" for days or weeks afterward is a system that's just ''begging'' to be abused. Especially if you don't even have to officially charge them with a crime to do it. What's stopping Pre-Crime from targeting a political opponent and detaining them on suspicion of a future murder in order to smear their reputation?
**** ** Because whenever they analyze the previsions, they always have the chief justice of the supreme court and a criminal justice professor witnessing the procedure, not to mention, every prevision is stored for future reference. It would be incredibly difficult to get a supreme court justice on board with an illegal smear campaign and impossible to fake a prevision.
**** ** Also locking people away indefinitely is EXACTLY what pre-crime is doing. If you attempt or conspire to murder now, even a crime of passion (i.e. the victim survives the attack) you are charged with the crime. Most western countries provide a defined path of rehabilitation. If the Pre-cogs are considered good enough to put people in statis indefinately, and arguement here about the law is moot, as we know that intention to commit murder is recognised as a crime in 2054 DC.
*** ** Charging those people with "something" would be the exact opposite of justice and due process. It is, in fact, entirely against those very concepts. What you mean is "in the interests of safety and making people feel better", which are not the same thing at all. The whole point of releasing the people who had been convicted of precrime was that they ''hadn't actually done anything''. Whether or not they had the intent to, whether or not they were going to go through with it, they HAD NOT done anything at the point they were arrested. That was essentially the whole point of precrime being flawed... these people were being convicted of '''thought crimes''', in essence. The fact that so many people on this page are perfectly okay with prosecuting people for thoughts they had but had not actually followed through on (whether of their own agency or someone else's) is disturbing as '''''fuck'''''.
*** ** Attempted murder is, in fact, a crime, so yes, the people that Precrime tackle at the last moment before a crime of passion can be charged with something. Conspiracy to commit murder is, in fact, a crime, so yes, the people that Precrime grabbed for premeditated murder can be charged with something. Just because nobody actually died does not mean the person holding the knife can't be charged with anything. And it's not about "thoughts they had," it's about things they had set into motion to do. Not by thought, but by action. The intervention may be extreme (life sentence without a trial ''is'' extreme), but intervention and charges are definitely warranted.



*** I always thought that that random lady was cheating on her beau, and he found out about it.

to:

*** ** I always thought that that random lady was cheating on her beau, and he found out about it.it.

[[/folder]]
[[folder:Abandoning the system]]



*** Also, remember 2 things about Precrime. First and foremost, the people who get arrested are locked up and put in a LotusEaterMachine; no trial, no jury, no nothing. Even though they could easily have been charged with the crimes, presumably the scandal alone tainted the officers' witnessing the attempted murders.\\

to:

*** ** Also, remember 2 things about Precrime. First and foremost, the people who get arrested are locked up and put in a LotusEaterMachine; no trial, no jury, no nothing. Even though they could easily have been charged with the crimes, presumably the scandal alone tainted the officers' witnessing the attempted murders.\\



**** Not true. The pre-cogs are just that, precognitive. Meaning, they see the future. They can only "read minds" to the extent that they can see what you're going to do and then work backwards to guesstimate when you had the thought that led to the action(s). So, they weren't grabbing ''everyone'' who "might possibly commit a murder" they were grabbing everyone who was ''guaranteed'' to commit a murder. It's only in a small amount of cases that the pre-cogs have some doubt about future events, and those doubts form the minority reports. Your point that they screwed themselves over by playing fast and loose with due process is quite right, though. If they had simply taken the people they caught and dragged them into court for a trial with the pre-cog visions as evidence there would never have been any reason to dismantle the whole program. (Aside from maybe some human rights concerns with the treatment of the pre-cogs, but I daresay most people would be cool with that if it dropped the murder rate to 0.)

to:

**** ** Not true. The pre-cogs are just that, precognitive. Meaning, they see the future. They can only "read minds" to the extent that they can see what you're going to do and then work backwards to guesstimate when you had the thought that led to the action(s). So, they weren't grabbing ''everyone'' who "might possibly commit a murder" they were grabbing everyone who was ''guaranteed'' to commit a murder. It's only in a small amount of cases that the pre-cogs have some doubt about future events, and those doubts form the minority reports. Your point that they screwed themselves over by playing fast and loose with due process is quite right, though. If they had simply taken the people they caught and dragged them into court for a trial with the pre-cog visions as evidence there would never have been any reason to dismantle the whole program. (Aside from maybe some human rights concerns with the treatment of the pre-cogs, but I daresay most people would be cool with that if it dropped the murder rate to 0.)



*** The Precogs may simply have been drugged to a limited radius. Adjust the medication a bit and there could be a corresponding range boost. What bugs me is Burgress's outlandish claim that national precrime would eliminate their need to use guns. As soon as criminals realized murder wasn't a viable option in robberies, they'd resort to painful extremity wounds.
*** I think having three pre cogs to cover all murders in the nation would be incredibly inefficient. Considering that it takes several minutes for pre crime to scrub the image and the difficulty to find a location in just the district, it would be near impossible for them to prevent crimes in locations they have little familiarity with. On top of that, this is just dealign with the fairly modest number (not murder rate, which I am aware is high) of murders of DC, which happen every other day or two. Imagine the department inundated with the number of murders that occur in Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, all at the same time. I think making more pre cogs is a more effective plan.
*** He makes no such "outlandish claim," he makes the idealistic remark that hopefully if Precrime succeeds, people won't have to use firearms. It's about as meaningful as someone saying they hope for world peace.

to:

*** ** The Precogs may simply have been drugged to a limited radius. Adjust the medication a bit and there could be a corresponding range boost. What bugs me is Burgress's outlandish claim that national precrime would eliminate their need to use guns. As soon as criminals realized murder wasn't a viable option in robberies, they'd resort to painful extremity wounds.
*** ** I think having three pre cogs to cover all murders in the nation would be incredibly inefficient. Considering that it takes several minutes for pre crime to scrub the image and the difficulty to find a location in just the district, it would be near impossible for them to prevent crimes in locations they have little familiarity with. On top of that, this is just dealign with the fairly modest number (not murder rate, which I am aware is high) of murders of DC, which happen every other day or two. Imagine the department inundated with the number of murders that occur in Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, all at the same time. I think making more pre cogs is a more effective plan.
*** ** He makes no such "outlandish claim," he makes the idealistic remark that hopefully if Precrime succeeds, people won't have to use firearms. It's about as meaningful as someone saying they hope for world peace.



*** Because like computer records, paper is a lot easier to alter, lose, or destroy than uniquely carved wooden balls. Remember, this is a system where it's mentioned it could be brought down ''entirely'' if one irregularity or mistake is made. They don't want to take '''any''' chances that someone could manipulate the system if they can avoid it.

to:

*** ** Because like computer records, paper is a lot easier to alter, lose, or destroy than uniquely carved wooden balls. Remember, this is a system where it's mentioned it could be brought down ''entirely'' if one irregularity or mistake is made. They don't want to take '''any''' chances that someone could manipulate the system if they can avoid it.



*** But don't forget this quote: "The precogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you will do."
*** They'd probably see actions taken in preparation for the crime, such as the would-be poisoner purchasing the poison's ingredients and fiddling with the water source.

to:

*** ** But don't forget this quote: "The precogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you will do."
*** ** They'd probably see actions taken in preparation for the crime, such as the would-be poisoner purchasing the poison's ingredients and fiddling with the water source.



*** No they cannot. Killing in self-defence or neglecting lacks murder intent.

to:

*** ** No they cannot. Killing in self-defence or neglecting lacks murder intent.



*** Say it with me, people. The precogs don't see your thoughts. They see ''the future''. In this case the would-be killer would never come up on the precogs' radar because he was destined to get flattened by a bus before he killed anyone.

to:

*** ** Say it with me, people. The precogs don't see your thoughts. They see ''the future''. In this case the would-be killer would never come up on the precogs' radar because he was destined to get flattened by a bus before he killed anyone.



*** The visions are psychic in nature. Presumably, they're more attuned to the psyches of the participants in a crime than to that crime's physical surroundings. The computer scans the eyes of whomever appears in the vision, and if there's no clear match, it plays a list of the likely possibilities through the precogs' brains to see which names ring a bell with their psychic impressions of killer and victim.

to:

*** ** The visions are psychic in nature. Presumably, they're more attuned to the psyches of the participants in a crime than to that crime's physical surroundings. The computer scans the eyes of whomever appears in the vision, and if there's no clear match, it plays a list of the likely possibilities through the precogs' brains to see which names ring a bell with their psychic impressions of killer and victim.



*** But this is ridiculous. From all the meticulous preparations the BigBad makes to pull off his scheme, it implies that the vision can only be discarded as MR by analysis. And that is reasonable, because otherwise they could discard ''similar'' murders (not staged to be similar, just accidentally so). No way such a profound system would allow some technician to decide matters of such importance.
*** It seemed plain to me that the technicians are trained to suppress echoes as part of the process, before those echos actually get recorded as precrimes. I'm not sure why this would be ridiculous, the point of technicians is to make sure everything runs correctly, and the judicial system doesn't want to be bothered with worthless echoes. The whole point of the movie is that this is a hole in the system for similar crimes - but those crimes presumably have to be awfully similar, and two murders aren't likely to be as similar as murders Burgess was responsible for without actually figuring out the flaw and gaming the system in the same way he did.
*** Seeing ''the same victim'''s name come up twice in similar visions would probably mark the second occurrence as an echo, right then and there. The odds that a person would be targeted for murder twice in identical ways, by identical-seeming or unidentifiable killers, probably never occurred to anyone.

to:

*** ** But this is ridiculous. From all the meticulous preparations the BigBad makes to pull off his scheme, it implies that the vision can only be discarded as MR by analysis. And that is reasonable, because otherwise they could discard ''similar'' murders (not staged to be similar, just accidentally so). No way such a profound system would allow some technician to decide matters of such importance.
*** ** It seemed plain to me that the technicians are trained to suppress echoes as part of the process, before those echos actually get recorded as precrimes. I'm not sure why this would be ridiculous, the point of technicians is to make sure everything runs correctly, and the judicial system doesn't want to be bothered with worthless echoes. The whole point of the movie is that this is a hole in the system for similar crimes - but those crimes presumably have to be awfully similar, and two murders aren't likely to be as similar as murders Burgess was responsible for without actually figuring out the flaw and gaming the system in the same way he did.
*** ** Seeing ''the same victim'''s name come up twice in similar visions would probably mark the second occurrence as an echo, right then and there. The odds that a person would be targeted for murder twice in identical ways, by identical-seeming or unidentifiable killers, probably never occurred to anyone.



*** Exactly. The Precogs couldn't detect Burgess as the murderer because whether or not he would kill Ann Lively was ''totally uncertain, even to him''. There was still the possibility that Precrime wouldn't get to the scene fast enough and the hitman would kill Ann Lively himself. So ''even Burgess'' didn't know whether he would ultimately end up killing her or not, which is why the vision of him murdering her only showed up in the last few seconds before he committed it.

to:

*** ** Exactly. The Precogs couldn't detect Burgess as the murderer because whether or not he would kill Ann Lively was ''totally uncertain, even to him''. There was still the possibility that Precrime wouldn't get to the scene fast enough and the hitman would kill Ann Lively himself. So ''even Burgess'' didn't know whether he would ultimately end up killing her or not, which is why the vision of him murdering her only showed up in the last few seconds before he committed it.



*** Maybe, but there's no telling whether the shot you fire will be fatal or not. I think even people in the world of Minority Report would be hesitant to try severely wounding others in case they unintentionally become murderers.
**** Perhaps, but from the clerk's point of view, even assuming he was thinking completely rationally with a gun pointed at him, all he could conclude was "you will not murder me"; for all he knew, Anderton would indeed shoot but not kill him, but could possibly cripple him, and I guess the privacy of his guests wasn't worth that risk. Plus, from Anderton's point of view, he could use your same logic: there were no pre-crime agents there, so he could safely shoot without the intention to kill, and Anderton was even more in the know that there was no second ball with some random clerk's name on it.

to:

*** ** Maybe, but there's no telling whether the shot you fire will be fatal or not. I think even people in the world of Minority Report would be hesitant to try severely wounding others in case they unintentionally become murderers.
**** ** Perhaps, but from the clerk's point of view, even assuming he was thinking completely rationally with a gun pointed at him, all he could conclude was "you will not murder me"; for all he knew, Anderton would indeed shoot but not kill him, but could possibly cripple him, and I guess the privacy of his guests wasn't worth that risk. Plus, from Anderton's point of view, he could use your same logic: there were no pre-crime agents there, so he could safely shoot without the intention to kill, and Anderton was even more in the know that there was no second ball with some random clerk's name on it.



*** The precogs don't predict the actual future, they predict what the future will be at the moment their predictions are made, without including the effects of those predictions. They don't forsee Precrime preventing the murder because before the prediction is made, the murder wasn't going to be prevented by Precrime. It is only after the prediction is made that the future changes to having the murder be prevented. But they would not see a crime prevented by an unaffiliated friend because at the time the prediction was made, the future was that the murder would be prevented, hence nothing to see.
**** You see the problem with that line of logic don't you? If there were no murder and no prevision to see, the unaffiliated friend would not know to warn the would-be murderer; hence the murder will happen, and there will be a prevision ball, which means the friend will see and warn the murderer, so there would be no prevision, so on and so on. Also, if the precogs only see the future at the moment their previsions are made, not accounting for any reaction seeing previsions might impact upon the scenarios they predict themselves, how can you explain Agatha's appearance in the prevision of the Leo Crow's murder? Her being there was caused by John seeing the prevision, running away, finding out about the minority reports, and then coming back to bring Agatha with him. Apparently the result of all this had already been seen in the initial prevision as well.

to:

*** ** The precogs don't predict the actual future, they predict what the future will be at the moment their predictions are made, without including the effects of those predictions. They don't forsee Precrime preventing the murder because before the prediction is made, the murder wasn't going to be prevented by Precrime. It is only after the prediction is made that the future changes to having the murder be prevented. But they would not see a crime prevented by an unaffiliated friend because at the time the prediction was made, the future was that the murder would be prevented, hence nothing to see.
**** ** You see the problem with that line of logic don't you? If there were no murder and no prevision to see, the unaffiliated friend would not know to warn the would-be murderer; hence the murder will happen, and there will be a prevision ball, which means the friend will see and warn the murderer, so there would be no prevision, so on and so on. Also, if the precogs only see the future at the moment their previsions are made, not accounting for any reaction seeing previsions might impact upon the scenarios they predict themselves, how can you explain Agatha's appearance in the prevision of the Leo Crow's murder? Her being there was caused by John seeing the prevision, running away, finding out about the minority reports, and then coming back to bring Agatha with him. Apparently the result of all this had already been seen in the initial prevision as well.



*** This is complaining, not headscratching. You know full well why they set it in America. It's because the movie's marketed to Americans, and they want characters and settings they can relate to. Headscratching is in-universe questions, and those have been answered plausibly.

to:

*** ** This is complaining, not headscratching. You know full well why they set it in America. It's because the movie's marketed to Americans, and they want characters and settings they can relate to. Headscratching is in-universe questions, and those have been answered plausibly.



*** I feel like the biggest piece of confusing weirdness in this scene is that the precops swoop in, grab the guy who was supposed to murder Anne, and then immediately bug the fuck out and don't even want to talk to her. If anything about this bit strained credulity it was that they left an intended murder victim alone at the site of what they knew to be her intended murder.
*** But that's not what the guard said. He said, "He drowned a woman named Ann Lively," not "We prevented him from drowning a woman named Ann Lively."
*** Because the first is quicker. If I'm not mistaken, Anderton immediately asks the guy where Ann Lively is now, and the guy is surprised to see she is a missing person--so it's clear that neither of them took that to mean Ann Lively was dead because of that guy. It's probably just a spoken shorthand--"What'd Precrime grab this guy for?" "Killing his wife."

to:

*** ** I feel like the biggest piece of confusing weirdness in this scene is that the precops swoop in, grab the guy who was supposed to murder Anne, and then immediately bug the fuck out and don't even want to talk to her. If anything about this bit strained credulity it was that they left an intended murder victim alone at the site of what they knew to be her intended murder.
*** ** But that's not what the guard said. He said, "He drowned a woman named Ann Lively," not "We prevented him from drowning a woman named Ann Lively."
*** ** Because the first is quicker. If I'm not mistaken, Anderton immediately asks the guy where Ann Lively is now, and the guy is surprised to see she is a missing person--so it's clear that neither of them took that to mean Ann Lively was dead because of that guy. It's probably just a spoken shorthand--"What'd Precrime grab this guy for?" "Killing his wife."
26th Sep '15 2:49:48 AM bombadil211
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Mounted police continue to be used today because horses allow for officers to patrol wider areas and to have a better vantage point in crowds. Horses are also useful in riots because of the intimidation factor, something that no amount of tech can accurately replicate. It's hard to act tough when there's a couple tons of pure muscle bearing down on you.
7th Sep '15 5:52:05 PM dmcreif
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:


[[folder:The murder rate spike]]
* What caused the unusually high murder rate in the United States prior to the introduction of PreCrime? Was it, like, something akin to the crack epidemic, or something?
[[/folder]]
3rd Sep '15 1:09:49 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Second, the way the future works in MinorityReport is presented as an inconsistent mix of PsychicPowers as future-foreseeing and {{Telepathy}} as mind-reading of intentions. That's how they were able to predict all of their murders; the reliable assumption that if you form the intent in your mind to kill someone, you will follow through with it and not have any last-second change of heart. The reason there were no murders at the start was because they were casting a wide net, grabbing EVERYONE who might possibly commit a murder without knowing for certain if the murder would have taken place had they not arrived. Without this certainty, precrime can't be sure of your eventual guilt and since they don't try you in a court of law, there's no jury or judge to weigh if you should be locked up because of a mere propensity to murder. Too bad they played fast and loose with the rules of how their psychics predict things because the film's events justified an overhaul of the program and there was still reason to keep all the arrestees imprisoned for attempted murder.

to:

Second, the way the future works in MinorityReport Minority Report is presented as an inconsistent mix of PsychicPowers as future-foreseeing and {{Telepathy}} as mind-reading of intentions. That's how they were able to predict all of their murders; the reliable assumption that if you form the intent in your mind to kill someone, you will follow through with it and not have any last-second change of heart. The reason there were no murders at the start was because they were casting a wide net, grabbing EVERYONE who might possibly commit a murder without knowing for certain if the murder would have taken place had they not arrived. Without this certainty, precrime can't be sure of your eventual guilt and since they don't try you in a court of law, there's no jury or judge to weigh if you should be locked up because of a mere propensity to murder. Too bad they played fast and loose with the rules of how their psychics predict things because the film's events justified an overhaul of the program and there was still reason to keep all the arrestees imprisoned for attempted murder.
1st Sep '15 11:16:34 PM NimmerStill
Is there an issue? Send a Message


**** Also locking people away indefinately is EXACTLY what pre-crime is doing. If you attempt or conspire to murder now, even a crime of passion (i.e. the victim survives the attack) you are charged with the crime. Most western countries provide a defined path of rehabilitation. If the Pre-cogs are considered good enough to put people in statis indefinately, and arguement here about the law is moot, as we know that intention to commit murder is recognised as a crime in 2054 DC.

to:

**** Also locking people away indefinately indefinitely is EXACTLY what pre-crime is doing. If you attempt or conspire to murder now, even a crime of passion (i.e. the victim survives the attack) you are charged with the crime. Most western countries provide a defined path of rehabilitation. If the Pre-cogs are considered good enough to put people in statis indefinately, and arguement here about the law is moot, as we know that intention to commit murder is recognised as a crime in 2054 DC.
29th Aug '15 1:53:45 PM Last_Hussar
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** Also locking people away indefinately is EXACTLY what pre-crime is doing. If you attempt or conspire to murder now, even a crime of passion (i.e. the victim survives the attack) you are charged with the crime. Most western countries provide a defined path of rehabilitation. If the Pre-cogs are considered good enough to put people in statis indefinately, and arguement here about the law is moot, as we know that intention to commit murder is recognised as a crime in 2054 DC.
24th Aug '15 6:59:05 PM nibor
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** The eyes were a different color because they where from someone of Japanese descent, he was not blinded but it hurt.
This list shows the last 10 events of 240. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.MinorityReport