Should High-Risk Individuals Be Jailed Before Committing A Crime?

[Hazi-Hammenuhoth]

Should high-risk individuals be jailed before committing a crime?

If we were to assume that one day in the future, advanced algorithms – or something entirely different – could predict crimes, would it be morally right to jail individuals long before they actually commit a crime?

Is it morally wrong to jail those suspected of being at high risk of committing criminal activity, if it protects society?

[jim360]

Well you're welcome to believe that it's not Orwellian -- but being a terrorist "sympathiser" is not demonstrating anything; it's a thought, not an action.

[naomi24]

Burning poppies is an action - as it waving placards calling for the death of British soldiers.

[ichkeria]

Jailing 'terrorist sympathisers'
Hmm...
And when people not in jail start 'sympathising' with the ones you've already jailed. What then?

[naomi24]

ichkeria, In that case, the people you mention are our enemies too, so what do we do? Kowtow because we're unwilling to deal with the consequences of taking positive action to protect our country and its citizens?

[Old_Geezer]

One problem with that course is knowing where to stop. When only a handful of folk are out of gaol how are the gaols run and financed ?

[naomi24]

We could impose higher taxes on those earning over £80,000. ;o)

[ichkeria]

Maybe they aren't 'pur enemies' Maybe they just don't agree with internment without trial. As others have already said, this was tried in one part of the UK in an actual war situation effectively, and it didn't work. I'm a bit surprised you're a fan of this because it's a short step from there to 1984 and all that ...

[naomi24]

ichkeria, // Maybe they just don't agree with internment without trial.//

That isn’t true, is it. People who burn poppies and would see us dead in an instant aren’t demonstrating against internment without trial. Nothing ‘1984’ about it.

[ichkeria]

I'm not talking about your 'poppy burners' necessarily tho am I. You have a picture in your mind of one particular type of person you don't like and I don't blame you, but it's surely a bit more complicated than that

[cassa333]

What about the to programme Person of Interest? That had an algorithm that identified people in danger.

Algorithms only show possibilities. If there was a possibility of Son of Cassa was going to be a serial killer then surely help in mitigating that would be preferable?

I would want to know why and how he is rehabilitated to not become a serial killer.

[naomi24]

ichkeria, It’s not complicated. If someone presents a threat to the security our nation and to the safety of our society, remove him from society.

[jim360]

What sort of threat? Who decides the threshold required for "threat"?

I mean I'm running into cliched "who guards the guards?" territory here, but the question is still valid. Protesting against the actions of the government is not a crime. Sympathising with terrorism is twisted and morally bankrupt but isn't a crime either. And sympathising with people locked up for "pre-crime" is pretty reasonable too.

The actions you're proposing are those of a tyranny, rather than a democracy. The excuse that "we have never faced this kind of threat before" is the excuse of a tyranny, not a democracy (never mind the fact that it's so historically inaccurate as to be laughable). Stand by it if you must; I breathe a sigh of relief that it's just an AB poster's opinion rather than official policy.

[ChillDoubt]

What naomi has said. I believe we discussed something similar recently (possibly an sp thread?) whereby I advocated internment without trial for persons suspected of terrorist-related activity. As I argued then, these people are on an MI5/MI6 list for a reason and thus warrant such action IMHO.

To be clear though, it's only for such behaviour/activity/sympathies that I'd advocate said action, no other.

[naomi24]

Jim,// The excuse that "we have never faced this kind of threat before" is the excuse of a tyranny, not a democracy (never mind the fact that it's so historically inaccurate as to be laughable). //

Really? What, historically, would you say is its equal? Personally I see nothing humorous in 9/11, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo, Nice, and the plethora of other atrocities committed throughout the world by Islamic extremists – but if you do, all I can say is it takes all sorts. The situation we face now is, without doubt, unprecedented. if you’re looking for tyranny look no further than the proponents of fundamentalist Islam.

[atalanta]

Nobody can be jailed without being convicted of a crime, unless on remand waiting for trial for a serious offence. Naomi mentions "removing from society those who have demonstrated very clearly that they are our enemies and, given half a chance, would destroy us in an instant". Fine, if that "demonstrated" includes committing a crime for which jail is appropriate. I might fantasise murder of all sorts of people who irritate the bejabers out of me, but unless I do it, I cannot be jailed. You'd have to read everybody's thoughts, and somehow weigh up their fantasies against their real intentions. By the way, writers of crime fiction would all be jailed for what goes on in their minds !

[naomi24]

Atalanta, //Fine, if that "demonstrated" includes committing a crime for which jail is appropriate. //

It does. Those who are British citizens should be charged with treason and locked up. Those who are not should be deported immediately, along with their families.

[ll_billym]

This argument can be boiled down to purely what should be the definition of a crime.

People should never be jailed without being found guilty of an actual crime.

The actual question here is whether it should be a crime to be judged at high risk of committing a worse crime - hence committing a crime (that being judged at high risk of committing another crime) that any court will find the perp guilty for assuming the computer says they are.

If it was a crime to have terrorist sympathies, or burning poppies, looking funny at kittens or flagging up on a computer as a wrong-un, then all terrorist sympathisers, poppy burners, kitten worriers and wrong-uns would be found guilty and jailed.

No need to lock people up for not committing a crime, just redefine what a crime is and fill your boots.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes/Eddie, thank you, but I can do without the lectures and the philosophising . My post at 16:14 stands. //

Irony alert!!!!

[naomi24]

Oh gawd, He's off!

[emmie]

too much like big brother i'm afraid.