This concept is troubling, uncomfortable, and could potentially be the basis for some very bad policy but none of that is a reason to dismiss it outright. If these correlations are real, it's worthwhile to find out more about it with an open mind.
But if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it? This would be a dangerous change of perspective about free will and its relation to the law.
Of course, we already use less than 100% effective prediction to target non-arrest intervention, so it's quite possible that 100% prediction would only have the effect to better target what we already do (and potentially alleviate harm or waste), rather than Minority Report style pre-crime arrests.
Im not sure crime prediction is a moral quagmire, just that what we use as a basis for prediction or a few drastic uses, like pre-crime arrests, are tough questions.
If it was 100% correct, it seems morally justifiable to use it, as long as you are a dictatorship. For a democracy, you would need not only correctness, but independently verifiable correctness. If the algorithm is 100% correct today but can be influenced tomorrow, you are giving absolute power over the state to whoever can influence the algorithm. After all, it's impossible to proof your innocence if you are convicted before the crime.
Basically, after solving the technical problems with creating the algorithm, you also need a system of checks and balances that can replace the public verifiability of our current court system.
With minority-report scenarios, it's not like you actually need to punish people as if they really did commit the crime, even though the crime is in the future. All you need to do is prevent it.
First, think about what a 'crime' is. What constitutes 'crime' is based entirely on what the 'law' is. Laws (in this sense) are a creation of man, not nature.
So now we are correlating a man-made concept with something that is (at least partially) the product of nature. If this correlation is real, we need to explore that aspect of it before we start talking about policy.
So what makes a face? Genes, sure but that can't be the whole story. Environment? Nutrition? Psychology? Over time, as a person matures, maybe all of these things and more play some role in how his face will turn out.
Then, could it be that something behind the factors that shape a face also promote a psychology that puts less importance on submitting to authority? When we look at this as a criminal justice issue, that seems like a bad thing. In another context, it may not be.
This is kind of what I mean by approaching the issue with an open mind.