You mean other than your callous disregard for accepted social norms because You think you know better? How about you repeated failure to acknowledge that even if the ability you proposed worked better than you have described (i.e. that it was 100% certain that the actions you predicted would illegal under the relevant laws if committed, with no "false positive" predictions) you have offered no evidence that your actions wouldn't precipitate a worse outcome than you prevented? Or maybe it's just that you have consistently presented the perspective in this thread that what you want is more important than anything or anyone else?
That doesn't justify calling me a psychopath. I'm disregarding some accepted social norms here because because these said accepted social norms does not take clairvoyance into account. It's basic thinking, are you willing to arrest one guy who will more likely than not endanger the lives of 5 others? Or would you just let it happen in order to fit the general standards that can't even be properly applied in this situation? I know that taking action may trigger unforseen consequences, but the chances of that happening aren't simply as certain and definite as the events that you or I have predicted. Also, in this case, I DO know better. Why? I can actually see the future.
Punishment is really really really bad at making people change their ways. Which is why a lot of people are pushing for rehabilitation instead. Similarly I would choose an approach that is more along the lines of "prevent the circumstances that led to the crime" I am assuming I have near omnipotent power here because the OP makes it sound like I can punish people on a whim and not get seen as a crazy bastard.
That's only because a lot of them are only looking at situations where the prediction gives them leeway to do that. There are gonna be situations where one is gonna be pushed into making critical decisions during critical moments. Also, the reason as to why you can arrest or punish people is because the law is in your side, their basis of trust and confidence in you is your repeated success of predicting crimes.
Sooo can I like do execution cause sometimes the root of the crime is in the person itself and even if you change everything else you can't really change people if they don't want to themselves, leaving out with this option/
Am I a cop or vigilante? Nah. I'm a common citizen with just a nasty vision of unwarranted peeks to the criminal world. Am I involved or related? I'm no hero, but I'll try calling the cops. Wait... am I the cop here? It feels like you're insinuating I'm a person of uniform in these scenarios. Punishing a crime is normal. Preventing it from happen is better. You don't blame someone whose yet to commit the crime. You can stop them, but arresting or punishing them is inexcusable, since we would be no better than them.
If I can see the future and I know someone will commit a crime, I'll try aiding them to stop the crime from occuring in the first place.
If the future is infallible and will always come to pass then you can't do anything to stop him anyways as he will commit the crime.
Time is relative but from third-person everything, all of time has already happened. Not punishing a person for something yet to come is based off of current human perception and the in my country the Patriot Act does allow it without trial(yes, this act is unconstitutional but it is still upheld). An approximately complete or perception would likely morally obligate one prevent and punish crimes. Space and time are the same thing so not stopping it will be morally similar to not stopping it because it is somewhere else. That said the op's hypothetical perception is far more limited, you would be required to act immediately and recklessly if you wanted to stop a nuke from going off. The legal implications are where it gets complicated in this scenario but not from arresting the would be killers. As the law supports this crusade it would be technically illegal and against society to not arrest others for future actions. That said it is perhaps fortunate that nobody knows if you hide a vision and can't be prosecuted on such. For those who don't want to arrest others and have taken a law class they will know the law is called the moral minimum(at its best) and doesn't equal or even try to equal morality. This means that the law acknowledges your moral withholding of information or outright refusal to some extent although this is only enough to create a basis for choice and doesn't actually answer the question. I would stop and even arrest them in a pinch. That said I would not deny them due process but in this scenario my own testimony would be proof enough. Out of fear of myself becoming corrupt or trying to not create a precedent for corruption I would strongly look for evidence and downplay the accuracy of my ability to reduce the dictator like abilities my position holds.