Bryan Lopez

6th

MINORITY REPORT
1. The first individual arrested for the future murder of his wife seemed to be suffering
from a short fit of madness as Thomas Reid would describe it, considering he
discovered his wife was cheating on him. In todays society, we tend to be more
lenient for such a circumstance. We even have different sentences for the different
situations surrounding a crime ex. Murder 1, 2, Rape, Statutory rape. In the movie,
the punishment is the same for all, isolation from society, and life in general. Could a
society today accept a standard punishment for all crimes? What about for certain
crimes, such as murder?

The thought of people being punished the same way for certain crimes is a bit too
harsh. It is to believe that people who commit a crime should receive a punishment,
of course, depending on the level of the crime, thats how they should be treated. In
addition, the law which is now excluded, capital punishment, should be reinstalled
for those who commit severe crimes; keeping people in jail is a great expense that
shouldnt be taken by the citizens for those who aggravate the lives of others.
2. The movie play on the idea of determinism being true. For instance, the system of
predicting murders must hold that actions are determined by outside forces that can
be measured. However, the determinist might have a problem. If all actions are
determined, then it doesnt follow that actions could be controllable and therefore
punishable? But they do in fact punish the perpetrators with a halo device that
removes them from existence almost. How might a determinist respond?

When crimes are being predicted, the police arrest people for what they wouldve
done, however, it is to think that those people, not having committed a crime,
arent supposed to be responsible for actions that will happen in an alternate future.
But, as for determinism, knowing that those actions will occurs, or rather they were
destined to happen, people would be arrested for even thinking of a murder,
because at some point, the murders were going to happen.
3. Suppose you know someone is going to perform x action, does that impact that
someones choice to do x action? In the movie, Danny dives into the issue saying
we arrest individuals who have broken no law. Fletch responds: but they will.
Danny counters saying but its not the future if you stop it isnt that a
fundamental paradox? John enters and demonstrates his answer. He rolls the ball
across the workstation, and Danny catches it before it falls to the ground. Did his
preventing the ball from hitting the floor change or prevent its future? How does this
affect the deterministic outlook? How might Danny or any freewill advocate respond?

After these actions are looked into a libertarianism way, people have actually an
option, which even the precog admitted to have. Even after the future is known, it
can be altered so it goes another way. The paradox that it is talked about is a viable
thought, because when the future, that according to a determinist point of view, is
destined to happen, but then it is stopped, that would mean society enters into a
new complete set of actions, a new future.

Bryan Lopez
6th
4. At the end of the movie, Lamaar is forced to make a decision. If he shoots John, then
precognition works, and the system continues. If he doesnt, it proves people do have
an alternate choice, but the system has failed. But would his decision really prove
that it works or fails?

When John analyzes that people do have an option, he poses the question to
Lamaar. The decision that he takes eventually makes the society change, because
depending on what he chooses, it shows that there might be free will or not. Most
important is the fact that even if he chooses to kill John, he made the choice, he had
different paths to pick from but he chose the one the precogs predicted, of course it
would only be a fraud because Lamaar would be the only one that knows that the
system can be tampered with.
5. When they visit the temple, John states that its better to not think of [the precogs]
as human. This is a dehumanizing statement, and sort of seems like these children
are robots, undeserving of humane treatment. Do you think this would be an
accurate assessment? Do you think its worth dehumanizing 3 children (or anyone for
that matter) to achieve a system of crime control of this magnitude?

When the precogs were born, they had a gift to predict what could happen to other
people; at some point, even the precogs saw it as a nightmare. People throughout
time, started taking these humans as weapons for their own benefit, Lamaar and
the old lady knew they were taking advantage of them, that they had to kill
someone else to obtain them just so they could be treated as machines.
6.

The movie identifies people with eye scanning and retina identification. For instance,
in the GAP store, everyone that walked in would get scanned and then greeted with
advertisements suited to their previous tastes, sort of like running personal setups on
a computer. If a system like this could be created, would how might this affect our
civil rights?

If people were to develop this kind of technology, it would only minimize the privacy
and allow the government to control as much as possible. This inflicts the civil right
and other laws. On other hand, this would affect the population socially because
that dependency for technology will increase. People would become certainly like a
machine that needs to be told what to do.