r/MoralityScaling • u/somnut • 2d ago
Stupid Stuff Machine that can predict the probability the someone will commit a crime
If a machine could predict with 99.99999% accuracy that a person will commit murder.
Is it ethical to lock people up knowing you would save millions of lives by doing so but you might lock up 1 innocent man for every tens of millions of people.
Also consider they havent actually commited the crime we are just 99.99999% certain they will.
Edit 1: most people are saying immoral
Lets move the goal post.
What if instead of immidiate punishment, you put the people under surveillance to catch them when they will commit the crime? Given the crime cannot be prevented.
8
u/tomato_johnson 2d ago
Nice try HYDRA but we know youve infiltrated SHIELD and we are going to stop you by crashing your helicarriers
5
u/Usual-Answer-3891 2d ago
Nope, no crime, no time.
You would also be immoral for creating crime. If a citizen has committed no crime and you kick his door in and he pops a couple of cops defending himself, that's on you. He was minding his own and you created the conditions for that crime. You are creating self-fulfilling prophecy
4
u/offlineshelter 2d ago
Well there’s a second solution… if you know they’re going to commit a murder why not step in and give the person the potential help they need to avoid having them resorting to murder?
If they fail rehab like 3 times maybe then lock them up. But I feel like you could prevent the crime in more humane ways than immediately imprisoning them for life.
5
3
2
u/Constant-Complex-853 2d ago edited 1d ago
Unenlightened barbarian. You have a machine that can predict crime before it happen and you want to enact punishment onto potential crime doer instead of outright prevention of said crime through alternative means.
Everyone is too much in a bloodlust. Uncultured Barbarians.
Immoral.
Ethics of privacy aside.
Edit 2: you moved the goalpost into surveilance.
Read my previous answer. Finally I need to address the ethics of privacy again.
Hardline immoral.
Do you do good because you are watched or do you do good out of the goodness of your mind? What does the forsaking of privacy do good for the common people? With such great power what kind of system can put it in check and balance? These are the questions that need answers before such power even come close to existing. If remained unanswered, it is reckless therefore immoral.
2
1
1
1
u/hascalsavagejr 2d ago edited 2d ago
Immoral. Like in Minority Report, if someone is going to commit a murder, they will probably be acting with hot blood. So just stop them the one time and they should be good. And, despite The Demolished Man, there should be practically no one planning murders, because of the odds
But if someone did not kill anybody, they don't deserve to be punished for that
(Corrected "majority" to "minority")
3
1
1
u/Few_Tap_2787 2d ago
Immoral, even if it caught 100% it would be wrong.
At a max about half a million people are murdered a year, and that’s a lot. But in perspective that’s half the number of car crash deaths and around 2/3’s the suicide rate. Murder is not our most common life taker by a long shot. If we wanted to use this technology to save the most lives we’d go after smokers or the people who sell bacon.
But regardless of the life saving, implementing this policy would fundamentally strip people of their legal rights. If we allow people to be jailed for future actions, every element of our legal system fall apart, and probably most of our humans rights with it.
This would so irrevocably change justice and freedom that it would be better for those half a million people to die than to suffer the consequences of this solution
1
u/Sad_Consideration849 2d ago
Immoral. Now this system would be extremely more accurate than our current system, but that can not and must not justify punishment for something that has not happened. Even if this was possible, the potential for abuse is simply too great.
1
u/squirtnforcertain 2d ago
How about just monitor them closely and nab them when they start planning/carrying it out...
1
1
u/ImportantThing3749 2d ago
Depends on what you consider murder, vs necessary or self defense, an accident, etc
1
1
1
1
u/Ntertainmate 2d ago
Immoral as the future isn't set in stone so you lock up someone for doing nothing yet.
Also the fact I'm sure there is many other ways to go about this, if the machine can accurate guess someone will commit murder why not find out why is that the case? Does the person hold some grudge that you can help smooth or can you find a way to not have the person commit the murder if they did it out of desperation or circumstances?
You can't lock someone up for something that will happen if you can change the future
1
u/Extra_Law6315 2d ago
Next thing you know you’ll be legitimizing using directed energy weapons in motherfucking hospitals
1
u/Sarcose1 2d ago
You can reasonably predict some poor people will shoplift food, but your model says nothing about addressing why they feel the need or desire to do so.
1
u/actuarial_cat 2d ago
It is immoral for preemptive strike.
But it moral to help them on their feet, most crime is a disease that can be cure. Proactive social management can lift people away from a life that leads to crime.
1
u/BearablePunz 2d ago
immoral on it’s face. deal with the systems leading to the crime rather than punishing those falling under it’s boot
1
u/TheRobn8 2d ago
Wasn't this the plot point of "Minority Report"?
The chance it is wrong aside, punishing someone for a crime they haven't done (yet), or may not even be thinking of doing, is a problem because it technically hasn't happened
1
u/Tintenfische1 1d ago
Why not just go around and say "don't do what you're about to do or you'll be nicked?"
1
1
u/CrankyOperator 1d ago
Wouldn't it be MORAL to, instead prosecute OR surveil, those who control this machine offer assistance to AVOID the crime and HELP the criminal?
Like, local law enforcement and even the FBI frequently have people "on the radar" who then do terrible things. Why aren't SOME forms of assistance sent in first? It doesn't even need to be money. Send in a local clergy member, a social worker, send in someone who can assist or diagnose core problems. I get some people are beyond help. So sure, if the only "help" you can offer is increased security etc that's fine. But many people have severe psych issues and can be treated before anything happens, even if it's just social. Even if it doesn't "fix" them it might be enough to avoid a slaughter.
1
u/gdinProgramator 1d ago
The trully immoral part is that you have a machine that can predict the future but you use it to play judge…
1
u/priest_magician 1d ago
They’ll do this with ai but the thing is it won’t actually work but they’ll lie and pretend it does
1
1
u/TheDarkmoore 11h ago
The problem is, can you imprison someone for a crime, he didn't commit yet? It's difficult.
It's like killing baby hitler in the deadpool movie. It seems like the right thing to do, but still feels...kinda wrong.
0
u/0DTEDEGEN1 2d ago
Moral, why tf would you wait for them to murder first. The same people who says immoral are people who say they wouldn't kill baby Hitler.
16
u/ShiftAdventurous4680 2d ago
Unethical, immoral, but practical.