Preventing Crimes
Response 1
Crimes that are committed by a person and are avoidable and detectable by outside body characteristics such as driving drunk should have every right to be prevented in this case. On the other hand crimes that cannot be detected or seen in this was should not try and be avoided because doing so one would impose on another’s right to freedom of thought. The Government and scientists have no right to change or even know the way a person thinks, but are in every right to prevent a crime that requires no state of mind to commit, such as driving drugs, or tampering with drugs.
The Governments “Intelligent Transportation Systems program” is a very positive way to describe a healthy and non-offensive way to prevent certain crimes in our world. It doesn’t impose on one’s mind and has no way of tampering with the ideas or way someone thinks. It simply prevents the crime from happening before it happens with no effect to the thoughts prior to making that decision. For example one way the program aims to stop speeding is the transfer of “data between vehicles and road infrastructure.” Like putting sensors along the road reflectors or in traffic lights to prevent drivers from running red lights.
The government has an idea to plan with chemists in which to prevent the crime of anti-social hate crimes such as murder, they will induce drugs into the water supply to change our state of mind. Not saying that everyone has thoughts of committing murder or even that we should have these thoughts, but we certainly all have the right to think it. So inducing a drug into our water supply to prevent thoughts of anti-sociality is an offense to our rights and isn’t a positive way to prevent the actions of a negative state of mind crime. To be honest in this area of crimes, there probably isn’t any way to perfectly prevent a crime from occurring. Only the harsh punishment that comes along with the crime.
The idea of having a perfect prevention for
Crimes that are committed by a person and are avoidable and detectable by outside body characteristics such as driving drunk should have every right to be prevented in this case. On the other hand crimes that cannot be detected or seen in this was should not try and be avoided because doing so one would impose on another’s right to freedom of thought. The Government and scientists have no right to change or even know the way a person thinks, but are in every right to prevent a crime that requires no state of mind to commit, such as driving drugs, or tampering with drugs.
The Governments “Intelligent Transportation Systems program” is a very positive way to describe a healthy and non-offensive way to prevent certain crimes in our world. It doesn’t impose on one’s mind and has no way of tampering with the ideas or way someone thinks. It simply prevents the crime from happening before it happens with no effect to the thoughts prior to making that decision. For example one way the program aims to stop speeding is the transfer of “data between vehicles and road infrastructure.” Like putting sensors along the road reflectors or in traffic lights to prevent drivers from running red lights.
The government has an idea to plan with chemists in which to prevent the crime of anti-social hate crimes such as murder, they will induce drugs into the water supply to change our state of mind. Not saying that everyone has thoughts of committing murder or even that we should have these thoughts, but we certainly all have the right to think it. So inducing a drug into our water supply to prevent thoughts of anti-sociality is an offense to our rights and isn’t a positive way to prevent the actions of a negative state of mind crime. To be honest in this area of crimes, there probably isn’t any way to perfectly prevent a crime from occurring. Only the harsh punishment that comes along with the crime.
The idea of having a perfect prevention for