Howard Marks was in his bedroom putting on his glasses when a group of armed police officers stormed into it, angrily wrestled him, and put him in the chains.

He was arrested on charges of "killing him in the future" for his wife Sarah Marks, an emotional crime that will occur only seconds later in the future when his wife finds his bedside with her lover.

These future arrests are made possible by the "clairvoyants", three individuals who know events before they occur and work for the police and predict the crimes that are about to occur if the police do not intervene. Now, with the foresight of the clairvoyants, the police prevent these crimes before they occur and imprison those who are expected to commit them.

It was natural for the accused to declare his innocence: he had not committed any crime at the time of their arrest. The State provides an argument that the accused would have committed the crime had it not been for the intervention of the pre-crime police. As one police officer explains: The fact that we have prevented it does not change the fact that it was about to happen.

However, individuals who are punished under pre-criminal laws seem to have a compulsory philosophical defense: if, as the officer asserts (the system of clairvoyants never make mistakes), this can only mean that the future is predetermined. The only way to change the predetermined future by the clairvoyants, as we are forced to believe, is to influence the very mysters themselves (knowing what the future can be for a woman to change).

This means that Howard Marx, for example, if he could have avoided his fate - in the absence of the intervention of the preachers and the pre-crime administration - he would not have simply chosen to kill Sarah Marx. But if that were so - if our destinies were predetermined and there was no free will - they would have seemed unjust to punish him for what he was about to do. Since it is wrong to punish someone for what he is not responsible for, and if we do not have free will, we will not be responsible for anything.

Here we come to the minority report, which means that from time to time one of the clairvoyants sees a future that may be different from what other clergy see, and this results in so-called minority reports.

One case that has made the minority system morally condemnable and must be removed is the case of John Anderton, who has no minority report but works in pre-crime management and was present during the appearance of a clerical report that showed that John Anderton would kill someone. Which he did not accept and kidnapped the intruder, which assured him in turn that he is able to avoid his fate. The reason is only because he is familiar with the Predators Prediction Report.

My conclusion here ends with the conclusion that the pre-criminal system is morally guilty in both cases whether the future is inevitable or the ability to choose. If the presumed criminals of the future would be lacking the free will, then it would be unfair to punish them, since they were not responsible for the crimes they might have committed. If they have a free will, then it would be unfair to punish them where we can not be sure enough that they will commit those crimes.

@xpilar I am not good at writing stories, just trying to convey to you what in my mind are thoughts about this future world