Everyone should have the right to make choices. Sometimes those choices can have good or bad consequences, but every person should be able to make their own decision. In the essay, "The Perfect Non Crime," I agree with the author Rich's stance on our freedom to think our own thoughts. I think perfect prevention of crime could not exist perfectly. Human error is something that has and always will occur. The use of crime prevention technology will have flaw because humans designed the technology. Therefore, all crime would not be prevented, or worse, innocent people would be charged.
I believe in God, and I think he gave us ability of free choice. We are allowed to make mistakes or help someone in need. It is in our DNA to make decisions and live with the consequences. I have learned more when I have done something wrong than when I get something right the first time. Rich states "Perfect prevention of crime like murder would require the ability to know what a person was thinking in order to determine whether he possessed the relevant culpable mental state." This is a troubling and scary thought. I do not want someone to read my thoughts and claim I thought about attempting murder, and then arrest me for the crime I did not even commit.
…show more content…
The scientists at NASA have made mistakes when designing rockets. If the top scientists in the world can make mistakes, then it could happen in the design of crime prevention. Another problem I foresee is manipulation of the program. Someone could create a false test and convict an innocent person. Power over people's thoughts and actions could lead to worse situations or scenarios. I believe will find loopholes or other methods to still commit crimes. The only person that can prevent crime, is the person