Justice for all?

[kinggingerman]

The idea that no one should be beyond justice is a promient belief in many legal systems. However do you believe that there are actions a person may take which can excuse them or would you instead argue that all should be equal before the law without exception. Maybe you lie inbetween on the issue however heres some intersting questions for you to think over.

1- A man saves the world somehow but later turns out to be a child rapist. Would you bring this man to justice even though he saved the world? Or would you decide that his actions excuse him somehow as without his actions there would be no one left alive?

2- James partner is sick with a terrible disease which will kill them if they do not recieve access to the drug. The only known sample is possessed by a man who intends to destroy this drug. If James kills this man the sample will be saved saving both his partners life as well as countless other lifes. James decides to kill the person, would you prosecute him for the murder?

3- Mark is standing on a bridge above a trainline. There are 5 children currently crossing the traintracks however a malfunction causes the gates to shut them in. A train is heading towards them and is unable to stop. There is a person next to Mark on the bridge who is large enough to slow the train down enough to not harm the children however in order to save the children Mark pushed the large man to his death. Should mark be prosecuted for murder or did his actions excuse him. It was not possible for mark to jump as he would not have affected the train.

I look forward to your responses

 

[blackhole1]

I can give one general answer to all situations: If they committed a crime, then they must pay for it. If we allow people to get away with murder for ANY reason we are making mockery of our own justice system. If our own legal system isn't sacred then we stand to lose far more than the lives saved here.

 

[MercurySteam]

1- A man saves the world somehow but later turns out to be a child rapist. Would you bring this man to justice even though he saved the world? Or would you decide that his actions excuse him somehow as without his actions there would be no one left alive?

I don't think pardoning someone from a terrible crime because he saved everybody is justice. So yeah, lock him up.

 

[Crayzor]

In all three cases, I would prosecute them. Even though they helped a lot of people in all three cases, they still broke the law.

 

[silver wolf009]

1: yes. Past pleanstries dont acount as a saving grace of present crimes.

2: Yes. murder is murder. That is a human being who is never going to speak again.

3: Yes. He killed a man. i dont care if there were others saved he killed him

I know people are going to think of me as cold but im interning at the courthouse in my town because i want to be a judge someday. I have learned to take the law to the letter not to its spirit.

off topic:

i love that cover.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

No good deed goes unpunished. In all of those situations, the person who has to do the deed is going to get punished, one way or another.

Damned if you do, fucked if you don't, is how I see this. Oh, and justice is usually for those who can afford it.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

1. Yes, because child molestation is wrong, and no matter the saving of the world. In my opinion, molesting a child pretty much shows you have a mental health problem anyway, so he would need to be sectioned. Maybe it's the innocence thing I have a problem with.

2. No, this one's obvious to me. If this disease is affecting hundreds of people and the man plans to destroy it then by his actions he is committing mass murder, in which case I'm fairly certain the American justice system at least would be on James' side, and I guess in this case I would too.

3. This one's a bit harder (and also very silly, at least 2 might be a little plausible), if there really was a man fat enough to slow down a runaway train, would Mark even be able to move him? The man would likely just be a giant ball. But if I have to assume it's a serious option, then from a utilitarian standpoint the one life is worth losing to save the five children who have the potential for greatness, since potential is always worth more than realised achievements to a utilitarian.

I can't really do the last one fairly, because as my philosophy tutors love to point out to me, I take things far too literally, and when a question couldn't have a grounding in a real world situation, I tend to blow it off. (Similar to the fat man and the stick of dynamite problem.)

Nice questions, but then again, the idea of Justice shouldn't be confined to the law in my opinion, and I think that true justice, while it requires a framework, should be determined by what is right. This directly affects my response to the first question because I believe that child molestation is wrong, plain and simple, so no matter your actions elsewhere, it's a hefty burden to pay off.

EDIT: Having read the reponses, and seeing that they are mostly in the area of 'always prosecute, justice is sacred etc' my secondary question to this would be:

So we should prosecute soldiers when they return from a war? They have killed people after all. Maybe after every armed conflict we should arrest the entire armed forces. If not then we are already making an exception to everyone who has fought and killed in war.

If someone assassinated a dictator who abused and murdered his citizens, should he be prosecuted? Also, if killing is the line you draw, shouldn't every American executioner be tried and convicted? At what point does the line stop? Is it only when you're doing it in the name of good? Because that is an extremely shaky philosophical and moral ground.

 

[Gigaguy64]

Interesting.
Here are my thoughts on your questions.
1: Saving the world is great, but he still is a Child Rapist and must face the consequences for his crime.
Hero or not.

2: He still Killed a man, he may have saved his life, his partners, and many lives in the long run but, he murdered to do it.

3: Yet again his actions are not excused imo as he murdered a man.
He saved the children's lives but he used the life of another person to do so.

Imo the end doesn't always Justify the Means.

 

[Rarhnor]

Yes
No
Yes

Edit: In the end i would go for "3x NO" because of my own principles, but seeing this as a matter of trial and judgement, I looked it from an (somewhat) objective perspective,

 

[Bobular]

1 - No excuse, I wouldn't stop him during saving the world but after I would (If I could stop a man who saved the world)

2 - This is just stopping one man from killing countless other lives, no problem with that

3 - I think that anyone in that situation that thinks "I know, I'll push this fat guy into the path of the train" is wrong

 

[Jedamethis]

Just like in Fallout 3, I saved as many people as I could, but I'm still the Scourge of Humanity. Doesn't matter what you did beforehand, you still stole that Fat Man. killed somebody

 

[kinggingerman]

3: Yes. He killed a man. i dont care if there were others saved he killed him

I know people are going to think of me as cold but im interning at the courthouse in my town because i want to be a judge someday. I have learned to take the law to the letter not to its spirit.

I used to take the literal interpretation of the law however on doing law at college i have found that the literal interpretation can lead to a miscariage of justice such as LNER V Berriman instead i feel the purposive approach is the best. But your answers were very interesting and i wish you luck in your job choice

 

[Thedayrecker]

The idea that no one should be beyond justice is a promient belief in many legal systems. However do you believe that there are actions a person may take which can excuse them or would you instead argue that all should be equal before the law without exception. Maybe you lie inbetween on the issue however heres some intersting questions for you to think over.

1- A man saves the world somehow but later turns out to be a child rapist. Would you bring this man to justice even though he saved the world? Or would you decide that his actions excuse him somehow as without his actions there would be no one left alive?

2- James partner is sick with a terrible disease which will kill them if they do not recieve access to the drug. The only known sample is possessed by a man who intends to destroy this drug. If James kills this man the sample will be saved saving both his partners life as well as countless other lifes. James decides to kill the person, would you prosecute him for the murder?

3- Mark is standing on a bridge above a trainline. There are 5 children currently crossing the traintracks however a malfunction causes the gates to shut them in. A train is heading towards them and is unable to stop. There is a person next to Mark on the bridge who is large enough to slow the train down enough to not harm the children however in order to save the children Mark pushed the large man to his death. Should mark be prosecuted for murder or did his actions excuse him. It was not possible for mark to jump as he would not have affected the train.

I look forward to your responses

It's all circumstantial.

1. How old is the child (16 years old doesn't seem that bad, for instance)? What did he save the world from (Could it happen again, and is he the only one who can stop it?)? How public is this incident? How do the people feel?

2. Why did the man want to destroy the drug? Why is there only one sample of a cure? If the man was a criminal than James would be greeted as a hero.

3. This one isn't so much circumstantial... It's more.... BS.... How did Mark know the man would stop the train? He would be prosecuted, because unless he is some kind of Physics King, he can't defend throwing somebody on a track....

 

[Billion Backs]

Morals are fake, justice is an idealistic concept that's drawn from these already incredibly varied and bullshit ideas that exist almost solely for the sake of oppression and control.

So, uh, I'd rather have laws that don't intrude to much, and keep to the letter of law. You can't be objective about morals. But you can be objective about written law.

I can understand having reduced penalties in certain situations - as they do now, at least when it comes to some laws, but if you've done the crime, you've done it. Letting some kind of a past or present achievements work as a get-out-of-jail card is a very slippery road. It would be like pardoning the top athlete of your country for committing first degree murder because if you don't, he will not be able to participate in future events and that might shame the country.

If you're a part of a society, you should be equal in the eyes of the law. If you have the problem with the law, try to change it or get out or simply be a criminal. The law is not something sacred (but then again, what is? Nothing.) and can be an oppressive regime which should be fought and overthrown by the free people.

And for your examples, I'd say prosecute all of them. The first guy might have reduced penalty although how exactly does one save the world and how would you quantify it? Either way, whether he goes to prison or not, he should be a registered sex offender.

For second example, definitely prosecute the guy. Just because someone else has something you terribly need and refuses to give it to you isn't grounds for killing said person. This goes completely against the concept of ownership, and it's absolutely ridiculous. Just because you're hungry, you shouldn't be excused for breaking into someone's house and eating their food. And so on.

For the third example, who the fuck is that guy to decide that the lives of some children are more important then the life of some other stranger? What gives him the right to sacrifice a (based on your example, unwilling or at least unknowing) stranger's life for whatever purposes? If the fat guy wants to jump, fine. If he doesn't, it's also very reasonable. You've got NO right to kill him. So, definitely jail, and probably 1st or second degree murder. Unless he has a really good lawyer who can bullshit the charge down to manslaughter.

 

[Kagim]

1. Hes a child rapist. He needs mental help. He needs to be put away until he can either be rehabilitated or simply placed away from children. I'm not saying be put away in maximum security prison, i mean put away in a mental health facility because he is sick in the head.

2. If you follow true justice he would still be prosecuted. He would however get a greatly reduced sentence due to circumstance. Letting him off Scott free is silly. However due to the reasons there is a good chance he will be up for parole and get it quickly.

3. That one is incredibly silly. Your assuming some fat guy can honestly stop a train. Your assuming the fat man is just going to stand beside the train tracks waiting to be pushed in. As well how high up are you? What about the fact trains are capable of ramming cows? Is mark strong enough to lift someone heavier then a cow over the guardrail of the bridge?

What the hell kind of gate function is this? Did it drop a cage down on them? If the Train is far enough away for mark to be able to force a bigger then a cow sized man before the train comes by why couldn't the kids walk around the gate, or under it. or over it, as train gates are normally just two wooden sticks, slow moving, and ring a siren as they fall. Even if it is malfunctioning and none of those warning gave off its still just two sticks stopping them from moving up or down or left or right. No engineer in there right mind would make a train gate system trap anyone on the tracks at the moment when they went down. That's stupid.

Though honestly these are very vague examples. If you were to add in the details you might find other endings.

People deserve justice and to pay for crimes, but an iron fisted one size fits all punishment would be a horrible thing.

 

[Jedoro]

Prosecute them all

The first didn't have to rape the child. The second could have saved the cure without killing the man. The third should have left it to the large man to decide if he wanted to sacrifice his own life.

 

[Sieg Firebrand]

No one should be above the law otherwise their is no point in having laws.

Oh, and on a side note, you'd have to weigh about 600 pounds and be made almost entirely of blubber to affect the speed of a train

 

[teqrevisited]

Prosecution is the only way. If justice is seen to be for some and not for all there will be uproar. Celebrities already get off the hook easier and that's appaling enough.

Granted there is a very small percentage of cases where the judge's discretion would see a better result.

 

[DefunctTheory]

1. There's dozens of arguement's on this, but my opinion is that is simple. There is a difference between a great man, and a person that does great things. Obviously, this is the later, and therefor punishment should be induced.

2. This falls under my number one answer.

3. Besides the obvious question (How fucking big was the guy he threw at the train?), this is easy too. He took an innocent man and robed him of his life and free will. The only sacrifice acceptable is self sacrifice.

 

[StarkRavingSane]

I'd prosecute 1 and 3.

The 2nd example is tricky. I assume killing the man is the one and only way to get the drug (though I can't imagine why). I also understand that the person is aware of the situation and is intentionally refusing to hand over the cure for no apparent reason (he wants to destroy the drug = he doesn't need it for anything), possibly out of malice. Now if I were the guy I'd undoubtedly kill to save my loved one.

I would possibly treat this situation as a mitigating circumstance, as the man in possesion of the drug, in my book, is a madman ready to commit what is nearly an act of murder. DIRECTLY and INTENTIONALLY letting someone die through inaction is also a crime.

If the person was an innocent, however, (eg. if the guy killed an innocent for an internal organ that he needs to save his loved one) then such an act should be punished, as one person does not have the right to decide which life is more important (even though, personally, I'd kill an innocent to save my loved one without a second thought, in extreme cases my emotions regarding my loved ones override my moral ethos, but afterwards I wouldn't, or at least I hope I wouldn't defend myself and would accept the full punishment).