“The Minority Report” details a world in which Precrime, a division of the police, utilizes three mutants called precogs who have the special ability to foresee crimes before they are committed, called precognition. Acting on these prophecies, Precrime officers, led by Commissioner John Anderton, apprehend and detain would-be-criminals. Acting in this way, the police have virtually eliminated felonies—as well as prison sentences and other forms of punishment that were never successful deterrents—but the downside is that they have also created detention camps full of individuals who haven’t actually carried out a crime. When Anderton himself is subject to the same treatment—two of the three precogs predict that he will commit a murder, forming a “majority report,” a kind of majority rule that deems him guilty—he comes to understand that would-be criminals may avoid committing crimes if they are given access to precognitive data about themselves. In other words, once Anderton learns that he’s going to commit a murder, this very knowledge talks him out of doing so, at least initially. “The Minority Report” thus highlights the fragile tension that exists between security and liberty in any given society. Depicting the consequences of prioritizing security at the expense of liberty, the story suggests that governments must work to find a careful balance between both values.
The Precrime system eliminates nearly all major crimes, and thus eradicates suffering and makes society safer. Anderton uses the precogs’ foresight, which extends a week into the future, to know who will commit a crime. On the basis of this data, Precrime officers preemptively apprehend and detain future criminals, thus ridding society of crime. Besides enabling the police to detain would-be criminals, this system also acts as a psychological deterrent. As Anderton explains, “the culprit knows we’ll confine him in the detention camp a week before he gets a chance to commit the crime.” Consequently, Precrime has eliminated 99.8 percent of all felonies, making society a radically safer place.
However, Precrime violates citizens’ physical and cognitive liberties. As Lisa, Anderton’s wife, points out, Precrime imprisons innocent persons in a detention camp. Anderton also acknowledges this, explaining, “We’re taking in individuals who have broken no law.” “We claim they’re culpable,” he continues, “They, on the other hand, eternally claim they’re innocent. And, in a sense, they are innocent.” The police not only physically imprison persons who have committed no crime, they also deprive them of the opportunity to change their minds in response to the precognitive data that resulted in their arrest. In other words, had future criminals been informed that they were going to commit a certain crime and be sent to a detention camp for it, they may have decided not to fulfill the prophecy and carry out the crime, thus saving themselves from punishment. The Precrime system creates a profound form of informational inequality in which a select few—the Police Commissioner and certain army officials—have exclusive access to that valuable precognitive data. The police thus have a great deal of relatively unchecked power, while the detained have no opportunity to challenge their imprisonment. In the interest of creating the safest society possible, Precrime has severely trampled on values like liberty and justice.
Anderton’s own experience with being found guilty of a crime he hasn’t yet committed suggests that precognition could be used more effectively to support both security and liberty without one overriding the other. Towards the beginning of the story, Anderton learns that two of the precogs’ reports state that he will murder Kaplan, a retired general who is plotting to destroy Precrime in order seize greater power for the army. The other report (the minority report) indicates that he will not murder Kaplan—that, “Having been informed that he would commit a murder, Anderton would change his mind and not do so. The preview of the murder had cancelled out the murder.” And, of course, this is exactly what happens, at least at first. After learning about his own unrealized plans to commit a murder, Anderton resolves to not let that happen. This moment highlights how the precogs could support both safety and liberty if only people had access to the predictions about themselves—safety, because their predictions prevent a murder, and liberty, because their predictions give Anderton a chance to change his mind.
Although Anderton affirms that the minority report is “absolutely correct”—he did resolve to not murder Kaplan after gaining access to the precognitive data—he ultimately decides “to murder Kaplan anyhow.” He changes his mind because he learns that Kaplan plans to read the minority report to the public at an army rally in order to discredit the system and gain more power for the army. In order to make the majority report correct, and to thereby protect the system that he created, Anderton murders Kaplan.
At an earlier point in the story, Lisa states, “Perhaps a lot of the people in the camps are like you,” adding, “We could have told them the truth.” In his speech at the rally, Kaplan reinforces this idea: “As soon as precognitive information is obtained, it cancels itself out […] The very act of possessing this data renders it spurious.” If Kaplan’s statement is true, then Precrime could cancel all crime without detaining anyone simply by sharing the relevant precognitive data with each would-be criminal. Even if it is incorrect—for it does not account for free will—sharing such data would put individuals in a better position to make informed decisions about their future. Interestingly, Anderton feels that sharing precognitive data with would-be criminals “would have been too great a risk.” Indeed, people may still decide, as Anderton does, to commit a crime, even to murder someone. At the end of the day, liberty entails some degree of unavoidable risk. But on the other side of the equation, security can severely infringe on liberty.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Security vs. Liberty ThemeTracker
Security vs. Liberty Quotes in The Minority Report
“You’ve probably grasped the basic legalistic drawback to precrime methodology. We’re taking in individuals who have broken no law.”
“…unanimity of all three precogs is a hoped-for but seldom-achieved phenomenon, acting-Commissioner Witwer explains. It is much more common to obtain a collaborative majority report of two precogs, plus a minority report of some slight variation, usually with reference to time and place, from the third mutant. This is explained by the theory of multiple-futures. If only one time-path existed, precognitive information would be of no importance, since no possibility would exist, in possessing this information, of altering the future.”
“Perhaps a lot of the people in the camps are like you.”
“No,” Anderton insisted. But he was beginning to feel uneasy about it, too. “I was in a position to see the card, to get a look at the report. That’s what did it.”
“But—” Lisa gestured significantly. “Perhaps all of them would have reacted that way. We could have told them the truth.”
“It would have been too great a risk,” he answered stubbornly.
“You’ve convinced me that you’re innocent. I mean, it’s obvious that you won’t commit a murder. But you must realize now that the original report, the majority report, was not a fake. Nobody falsified it. Ed Witwer didn’t create it. There’s no plot against you, and there never was. If you’re going to accept this minority report as genuine you’ll have to accept the majority one, also.”
“But there can be no valid knowledge about the future. As soon as precognitive information is obtained, it cancels itself out. The assertion that this man will commit a future crime is paradoxical. The very act of possessing this data renders it spurious. In every case, without exception, the report of the three police precogs has invalidated their own data. If no arrests had been made, there would still have been no crimes committed.”
“Each report was different,” Anderton concluded. “Each was unique. But two of them agreed on one point. If left free, I would kill Kaplan. That created the illusion of a majority report. Actually, that’s all it was—an illusion. ‘Donna’ and ‘Mike’ previewed the same event—but in two totally different time-paths, occurring under totally different situations.”
