This report examines the ethical implications of punishing individuals for crimes they are predicted to commit in the future.
(Generated with the help of GPT-4)
| Quick Facts | |
|---|---|
| Report location: | source |
| Language: | English |
| Publisher: |
Singapore Management University |
| Authors: | John N. Williams |
| Geographic focus: | Global |
The research method involves a philosophical analysis of a hypothetical scenario inspired by the film “Minority Report,” where future crimes are predicted with near certainty. It evaluates arguments from the perspectives of desert-theorists, who justify punishment based on what offenders deserve, and deterrence-theorists, who justify punishment based on its utility in deterring future crimes.
(Generated with the help of GPT-4)
The report explores the moral issues surrounding pre-crime, pre-punishment, and pre-desert, using a hypothetical scenario where future crimes can be predicted with high accuracy. It debates whether it is justifiable to punish individuals for future offenses they have not yet committed, considering arguments from both desert-theory and deterrence-theory perspectives. The report concludes that pre-punishment is morally wrong and that desert-theory offers a better justification for punishment in general.
(Generated with the help of GPT-4)
Categories: English publication language | Global geographic scope | autonomy | crime | criminology | desert-theory | deterrence | deterrence-theory | ethics | justice | minority report | moral culpability | moral justification | philosophical analysis | philosophy | pre-crime | pre-desert | pre-punishment | punishment