Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
Well, we already arrest and charge people for what they intend to do. If someone, for example, makes a threat to murder X person, and then takes steps to carry out said threat, they can and will be arrested and charged with attempted murder without ever having fired a shot (or whatever method of killing they were going to pursue). The steps have to be pretty clearly for the purpose of murdering the person though.
Well, we already arrest and charge people for what they intend to do. If someone, for example, makes a threat to murder X person, and then takes steps to carry out said threat, they can and will be arrested and charged with attempted murder without ever having fired a shot (or whatever method of killing they were going to pursue). The steps have to be pretty clearly for the purpose of murdering the person though.
They can only be charged with attempted murder if they made an attempt. For instance shooting at the victim or their home, stabbing the victim, luring the victim to a secluded location for the purpose of killing them (so must be caught in the act and armed or sufficient evidence proving that was the plan), causing serious life threatening injuries during an assault with proven prior intent, paying for a contract hit on the victim (regardless of whether the contract is even attempted).
If that isn't satisfied then it could be conspiracy to murder, but not attempted murder.
Of course they should. And they are. Frequently. The question goes to what they intend to do, not what they are thinking. Conspiring to commit a crime. Think of it that way. Are we not to arrest a terrorist until after his bomb detonates?
A woman calls police because her ex-husband or boyfriend is stalking her. He's sending her threatening messages, following her around, and harassing her at work.
Now all of those would warrant a restraining order, but let's get real. We all know restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're written on when it comes to protecting someone. But OK, this woman gets a restraining order. Her ex or boyfriend is threatening to kill her for it.
Is this something that a person should go to jail for? OK, let me ask that another way: is this something that justifies locking this man up and if so, for how long?
A number of states have enacted stalking laws, under which these actions would, in fact, be a crime.
But arresting someone because of what we think they will do? No way.
They can only be charged with attempted murder if they made an attempt. For instance shooting at the victim or their home, stabbing the victim, luring the victim to a secluded location for the purpose of killing them (so must be caught in the act and armed or sufficient evidence proving that was the plan), causing serious life threatening injuries during an assault with proven prior intent, paying for a contract hit on the victim (regardless of whether the contract is even attempted).
If that isn't satisfied then it could be conspiracy to murder, but not attempted murder.
Yes, that's right. I don't know what I was thinking.
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
Not everyone plans to act on their intentions. Therefore one can't go arresting people because of their thoughts.
You can't. And it's not even because, just like in a movie, system can be abused.
Reason is simple. Intentions are intentions, act is act. Until act is committed, there is no crime. NO ONE can 100% predict future.
Alas, there is already system based on this principle implemented for years. Say, they find a guy who is part of a terrorist cell and he discloses members. Those members are arrested and imprisoned for INTENTIONS to commit crime.
So it's sort of there anyway. Abused, of course. Many are no guilt in Guantanamo.
That's way too loose a standard. What are you...the thought police?
If they commit a crime, fine, arrest them. If they take actual steps to commit a crime, fine, arrest them.
The law actually handles this fairly well.
You can be arrested for an attempt to commit a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime.
In appropriate situations, its a good thing. An ounce of prevention will always be worth a pound of cure. If we can keep people from being murdered, raped, or robbed than I believe the world will be a better place.
However, specific things are required to convict people of these offenses. If one conspires to commit a crime, generally a mere agreement to commit the crime is insufficient to support a conviction. Its necessary that conspirators engage in what the law calls "overt acts" in furtherance of the conspiracy.
For example, A and B agree to rob a bank. In furtherance of the conspiracy, B goes and buys a gun which he shares with A. These are sufficient facts to legally support a conviction for conspiracy to rob a bank.
I certainly do not want to live in a country where people can be sent to prison merely for thinking a "criminal thought". I suspect almost all of us briefly entertain thoughts about killing a boss, co-worker, politician, teacher, or spouse at some point in our life. The whole country would end up in prison if we could read minds.
Back when I was a young punk, there were a few times I was so angry and frustrated at someone that I intended to do harm, just to come to my senses before the act and snap myself out of it. I think too much about my future.
That's probably covered under anti-stalking law provisions. Stalking - FindLaw
Yes, it's covered under stalking laws now. But it wasn't in the past. Stalking laws are a relatively new thing. So if we're talking about stalking laws, are we saying that we will arrest for intent only when there are laws in place against that specific intent?
What about things there aren't laws against yet?
OK, let's talk about kids shooting up a school. Suppose you found a kid who had a journal that reflected his wish to shoot up his school and maybe this kid has access to weapons. Is this a genuine threat or not? Should the student be confined? Does he have to hurt someone first? What happens if all he's doing is getting his frustrations out on paper and he has no intention of hurting anyone? How can we tell? And if you say a psychiatrist will talk to him and make a decision, is that a rational thing to continue doing in these cases if the psychiatrist makes the wrong decision? Should we stay on the safe side and confine this student "just in case" he's serious or take a chance and do nothing?
What about an author who writes a book about someone shooting up a school? Is a published book all that different from a personal journal? And what if the book in question is written in journal form? Same difference?
And a criminal act doesn't have to be something that is communicated in writing. A level 3 sex offender, by virtue of his level, is almost guaranteed to offend again. So why do we let them out? By their past behavior, aren't they telling us they'll offend again? So once free, shouldn't they all be confined again before they offend, rather than after? And if so, once set free, isn't confining them again confining them for intent before they've done anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Why do you ask?
I just like to see what other people think. I always learn something in a debate with other people.
Last edited by rodentraiser; 07-29-2017 at 11:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
