Edging Toward Precrime

Posted: January 20, 2014 in Courts, Law, Technology & Crime, Violence
Tags: , , , , , ,

In his short story, The Minority Report, Philip K. Dick predicted a future in which crime was non-existent, everyone lived in complete safety, and the government had established an all-encompassing social order. In this imagined future, society had devised a way to prevent all crime before it ever occurred by identifying, arresting, and prosecuting “perpetrators” before they could do any harm.

While we’re not there yet, we’re edging ever closer to that reality all the time.

Image courtesy of hyena reality / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of hyena reality / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

On a national scale, you don’t have to look much further than the current NSA controversy to see this idea of safety-through-divination playing itself out in everyday life. The federal government, with its own cryptically named precogs, – PRISM, DISHFIRE, PINWALE, etc. – is earnestly striving to identify and predict the next terrorist attack. And, when they make a prediction, people will be detained, killed, or otherwise stopped before they can commit any crime.

That’s what society demands of its security-industrial complex at the moment.

And, why not? The idea of an entirely safe, crime-free society is a compelling one. In our safety-saturated culture, stopping crime completely – especially terrorism – is a goal that most people would heartily support. In fact, it would sound insane to argue somehow that a certain amount of terrorism is good or necessary. It’s definitely neither.

Terrorism aside, though, the idea of predicting criminality raises troubling questions about the relationship between a government and its citizens in a free democracy.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When is the government justified to intervene in the lives of people who have not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing? I’m not talking here about would-be terrorists conspiring to kill or maim the masses. I’m talking about people being profiled and labelled “high risk” and then subjected to government intervention and heightened surveillance in an effort to prevent them from engaging in criminal behavior.

Chicago, for example, has developed a “heat list” of people it predicts will commit a crime at some point in the near future:

With the help of mathematical analysis, Chicago police hope to home in on people it believes are most at risk of shooting someone or being shot themselves. The strategy calls for warning those on the heat list individually that further criminal activity, even for the most petty offenses, will result in the full force of the law being brought down on them. At the same time, police extend them an olive branch of sorts, an offer of help obtaining a job or of social services.

In a free society, is a mathematical algorithm – no matter how well crafted or intended – just grounds for “warning” people about their future behavior? Is it enough to single them out and subject them to the “full force of the law,” even for minor infractions? If so, what’s to stop the government from applying this same approach to the full spectrum of deviance? Should we send IRS agents out to warn those who match a certain “tax cheater profile” to report all their income, or FBI agents out to do pre-emptive audits of companies that are predicted to engage in fraud?

Image courtesy of MR LIGHTMAN/ FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of MR LIGHTMAN/ FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Would you want a police officer knocking on your door and telling you that a mathematical process had identified you, or someone in your family, as a potential criminal?

Some would argue that if Chicago’s approach saves even one person’s life, it’s entirely worth it. In the abstract, I would definitely agree. I don’t want to see anyone needlessly harmed in any way. But, as we carry that argument out to its potential endpoint, it becomes less and less palatable and more nonsensical.

To create perfect safety, we could establish government assessment units that evaluate every citizen on a regular basis, from childhood on, to determine their statistical probability of engaging in crime, and then provide customized interventions to prevent deviant behavior. Perhaps we could even develop a High Risk Person (HRP) registry that would map out where these future offenders live, work, and play, so that we could all keep an eye out for them. And, of course, if any of these HRPs balked and didn’t follow through with their prescribed interventions, we could arrest and incarcerate them for non-compliance. All in the name of safety.

Sounds like something out of a PKD novel, doesn’t it?

Chicago’s individualized approach to prediction is taking us in this direction. As a  society, we need to decide if that’s where we want our system to go. I would argue that we don’t want to tip the balance of power away from individual freedoms and toward more government intervention in our lives, even if doing so might give us an increased margin of actual or perceived safety.

What are your thoughts? Leave and comment and share your opinions!

Share this post with all your favorite services!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Comments
  1. Brittius says:

    Reblogged this on Brittius.com and commented:
    Preemptive, was not allowed in the 20th Century (my experience), as no crime was In Fact committed. Reasonable Cause, and Probable Cause, were (generally) based upon behavior(s) where individuals were known actors. There were disputed cases when robbery squads were figuring out pattern robbery cases, and defense attorneys would go into tirades of crystal balls, where their defendant was being stalked rather than what was good police work in obtaining clues from a series of factors and being vigilant. It was not “Mind Police”, it was establishing patterns. The key was what was being the motivating factor. Human behavior had a heavy role, and unknown persons without a prior record, had to be figured out. That is why, certain puzzles are worked on, because they develop a skill set for figuring things out, accurately, and properly. You start out as a cop, but must learn to become a bookworm.

    Like this

Leave a Comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s