I think that 'surveillance state' and 'precrime' are emotionally laden words that do not align with what I believe.
Okay. That doesn't change the fact that they describe very real concepts that affect law and law enforcement both in theory and application. The ideas are here, they affect how governments treat people, they're deserving of scrutiny, consideration, and criticism.
If we were to be honest here, there would be times where both of us would say "no, never" to these ideas. Then there would be times where we would say "weeeell, maybe they have some merit, but we should be careful." There's a shit load of grey here that makes it very hard to take a philosophically absolute stance. Between you and me though, I'm personally much more on the borders of "no, never" when it comes to both concepts.
Regardless of what I want, we have a surveillance state.
Doesn't mean it's alright.
Regardless of what I want, some beliefs lead to violent action and some do not.
It's not as simple as that and even you are willing to admit that.
Regardless of what I want, people are going to die.
If people are going to die anyway, why should we allow our governments to monitor us, to catalogue who we are, what we believe, what we say and do, to potentially hold against us down the road?
I am in favor of targeted application of limited mental health resources to the places the would do the most good, measured in human lives saved by prevention of violently anti-social acts committed by (for whatever stated 'reason') unstable, radical individuals.
What makes you think it's just a mental health issue? I've been told time and time again that this is about politics, international relations, economics, cultural identities, social cohesion, and so much more. Wouldn't you agree that addressing all of these issues once again deserve scrutiny and consideration?