This passage warns against the dangers of predictive crime prevention. Richard Conniff’s article in Science Digest highlights research aimed at identifying potential future criminals before they commit any crime, with proposals even suggesting preemptive jailing or execution. Critics, including ACLU lawyer David Landau, point out both constitutional and scientific flaws future criminality cannot be reliably predicted. The author adds a religious and moral objection: justice is only valid when applied to actual acts, not hypothetical ones, and people can change over time, as exemplified by reformed youth who later became productive citizens. Predictive measures risk punishing the innocent, potentially targeting those critical of authority, making such “crime-stopping” both dangerous and unjust. #PredictiveJustice #CivilLiberties #BiblicalJustice #CrimePrevention #MoralResponsibility #SocialScienceLimitations

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related