The Fallacy of Precrime, It’s Not Just for the Movies!

Wilton D. Alston
Friday, October 17, 2008

In the movie Minority Report Tom Cruise portrays a policeman, of sorts, who works for a special police department called “Precrime” which apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge, provided by three psychics termed “precogs”.

The premise of this approach to crime was pretty simple: Apprehend a murderer before he has a chance to kill. The scheme fell apart because it came to light that the key psychic is the daughter of a woman who was killed by the director of the department, because she wanted her daughter returned to her. The main themes of Minority Report are the classic philosophical questions surrounding foreknowledge and free will vs. determinism.

As it turns out, the concept of pre-crime is not confined to the movies, apparently.

Lawmakers in Alaska have made it illegal to send text messages while driving. From the article:

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Drivers will have to take their thumbs off their phones and put them back on the steering wheel while cruising down Alaska roads starting today when a ban on text messaging while driving begins. … Drivers are still able to read messages on their phones, BlackBerry’s and iPhones, but it is a crime to write messages. … The new law also says Alaska drivers are prohibited from watching video while driving. … Alaska joins four other states in barring the latest driver-distraction phenomenon.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Further on, the article says:

Like Alaska’s seat belt law, it is considered a primary offense, so an officer could pull a driver over if he thinks the driver is punching away on an electronic device. But unlike other traffic violations, like the seat belt law, which could result in a fine and points off a license, driving while texting could land a driver in jail. … Texting behind the wheel is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and one year in jail. It is the same first-time offense punishment as driving under the influence — although DUIs have minimum sentencing requirements and the texting law does not

One year in jail? If texting gets you up to one year in jail, I suspect that eventually applying make-up might result in 18 months of confinement. What about listening to loud music or arguing with a passenger? My guess is six months in prison will soon be considered. The choices are endless.

Now, it is necessary, nearing vital, to separate the issues involved. Is it safe to send a text message while driving? No.  Similarly, is it safe to drink and drive? Of course not! (It’s worth noting that driving under the influence — DUI — appears to have set the legislative precedent for laws like this anti-texting law.) The issue is not if a certain behavior is safe or not.  Further, the issue is not if an unsafe behavior, conducted antecedent to a legitimate infringement such as hurting someone, is worse or better. Frankly, it is bad enough to hit someone with your car, no matter if you were drunk, distracted, or simply a poor driver. The infringement stands on it’s own and does not need further modification. In other words, it does not mitigate a tragic event to have not been texting and it does not worsen a tragic event to have been texting.

According to the paradigm of libertarian law the infringements to person exist on their own and are punishable directly. As such, there is absolutely no need to punish antecedent behavior before any direct infringement occurs. When the State seeks to punish such behaviors, it generally does so by establishing an arbitrary boundary around what is acceptable and what is not. While it might be admirable to seek to influence prudent behavior, setting up arbitrary boundaries is not the way to accomplish this worthy goal. Every parent understands this fact. No State is equipped to change it.

Print this page.

Comment Rules

Comments are closed.