Instead of pre-emptive strike on Iran or any other countries, US congress should pass a law allowing law enforcing agencies to arrest all the known criminals before they commit crimes. That will wipe out the crimes and possible victims won't have to suffer. Billions of dollars on crime solving will be saved also. Millions of people won't die from the bullets of criminals. Does it make sense to any one?
2007-10-02 02:15:28 · 15 answers · asked by majeed3245 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
if you were all knowing like a "god" and knew the outcome, yes
since none of us "know" then, no
2007-10-02 02:18:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about those who are not criminals? The ones who are about to commit their first crime? How do they identify them? What about their victims? And what about the criminals who have decided not to commit any more crimes? Do they arrest them because they "think" they are going to commit a crime? Get a clue here, we don't arrest people until after they commit a crime, not before. You would need a true psychic mind reader to do that, and they simply don't exist.
2016-05-19 00:46:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has been no pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Minority Report (movie) says it clearly... there is no way for us to determine that a person will actually do a crime as opposed to the actually doing of it. "Intention to do" something criminal is a punishable offense: without a reasonable doubt, a court in the USA may find a person's intended to perform an illegal act, but the penalty for this is way less than conviction for the actual crime.
Our system of conduct uses society to ward off criminal behavior. If you are really concerned about this issue, in the long run, the best answer is for you to get more involved with your society's issues. By reducing the stress caused by our individual needs, differences, and injury, you will actively promote your cause.
To permit the police to hold individuals because somebody says they may intend to do bad things has ALWAYS (and by always, I mean about six thousand years of written history) resulted in profound abuse, suppression of groups we now protect with our Constitution, and the elevation of delusional authority - no exceptions. You Fathers/Mothers and their Fathers/Mothers have learned the hard way that the delusional authority does far more harm than does the criminal you seek protection from.
2007-10-02 02:40:04 · answer #3 · answered by science_joe_2000 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. How do you know they're going to commit a crime? Start searching everyone's homes just in case? Guess what, that violates the Fourth Amendment, as would arresting people without cause, which is essentially what you would be doing.
2007-10-02 02:23:47 · answer #4 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is supposedly the duty of the government thru our police and other similar agencies, to protect its citizen from criminalities. only, they are either inept or ineffective.
it is sad to say, however, that we cannot arrest a 'criminal' before he commits the crime. otherwise, we can all be a victim of warrantless arrest on a mere suspicion.
what they do is to watch for these people who has the tendency to commit crime. monitor the activity of all convicted felons and those with criminal records to prevent them from committing a crime again.
but then again, we are living in an imperfect world.
2007-10-02 02:42:37 · answer #5 · answered by DannyLua 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can't arrest someone because you think they might commit a crime. Lots of criminals have been truly rehabilated and are now productive citizens. What you're suggesting is a violation of someone's civil rights. We all could be arrested if arrest was baste on speculations.
2007-10-02 03:52:14 · answer #6 · answered by merry59 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is the most ludicrous suggestion i've heard in a while.
It seems to me that law enforcement has a hard enough time respecting the law itself and to give them more power would be a human rights nightmare.
You've just expressed an idea that is against commonly held principles, and your name is foreign.... would you object to a visit from the FBI in the middle of the night to investigate you as a subversive?
2007-10-02 02:25:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not even slightly.
How do you *KNOW* that somebody is going to commit a crime?
What if they say they are going to but don't?
And by the way, the pre-emptive strike concept was the justification for the US war with Iraq ... and see how well THAT worked out.
2007-10-02 02:18:32 · answer #8 · answered by Elana 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You don't know your law. Study your law in your country to understand it.
What you are stating is a violation of Human Rights. It ca not be done. Every man is covered with the law of man and the law of God. You ought to know this b efore speaking on things which you can not understand at all.
jtm
2007-10-02 02:25:30 · answer #9 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is difficult to know in advance who is going to commit a crime.
But certain people are more likely to commit crimes than others. Such people should be carefully monitored for any suspicious activities.
2007-10-02 02:24:25 · answer #10 · answered by Andy Roberts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should McDonalds go ahead and hire you before you apply since that appears to be your IQ level?
2007-10-02 02:18:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋