Poll: another ethics question: would you rather kill an innocent man or let a mass murderer loose?

[shootthebandit]

So heres the scenario and its probably a pretty common one but an interesting one. Basically you are a hangman in an old western town. One evening a lot of towns people end up dead or raped or what ever other horrible crimes you can think of. This is the days long before forensics and the next day a new stranger appears in town so naturally the townsfolk assume he is the killer/rapist/generally evil doer.

we dont know whether he is innocent or guilty but as the hangman you have 2 choices:

1) hang him, he may be innocent but we dont want to take any chances
2) let him live, I dont want to kill an innocent man although theres a chance i could be releasing the bad guy back into town

 

[GoaThief]

Obvious answer is let him go, what makes you any better than the perpetrator if you take the lives of innocents in a pretty nasty manner? Justice has to be just.

Guess it's more interesting for Americans what with the death penalty and all, general European opinion is very much against it and taken as a given.

 

[b3nn3tt]

In that scenario, absolutely don't hang him. There is absolutely no proof that he even had anything to do with what's been happening. If anything, with him having only just arrived in town, he's less likely than most to be involved.

In a more general sense, I would say that it is always better to risk letting a guilty man go free than imprisoning an innocent one. I'm very much of the view that people are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[JoJo]

I would be somewhat curious as to why I'm judge, jury and executioner rolled into one for this town, but nevertheless I would let him go. There doesn't really seem to be more of a reason to suspect he's guilty than a random hunch and so there'd be too high a risk of punishing an innocent man for my taste.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can I vote hold-him-in-jail-for-a-little-while-I-investigate?

 

[nomzy]

There's absolutely no proof at all. It's a terrible hypothetical.
If there was circumstantial evidence at best that pointed at him but no real solid proof that makes it clear then yeah i'd hang him.

 

[Muspelheim]

Keep him detained and hold an investigation? Even if forensic science and practice is in its infancy, surely I could find something out.

I'm not terribly against the idea of executions in very special cases. But the evidence must be entirely waterproof, as conclusive as it could become.

 

[Euryalus]

If there's no evidence whatsoever, then why are my options hang him or let him go?

Why isn't it an option to hang any other person in the town? Why can't I lead an Investigation? Why can't I not care and go home and make myself tea?

You've created a dualistic hypothetical situation where it isn't required. Hypotheticals exist to explore situations. Rules of the hypotheticals focus your attention on specific moral problems... But without any real basis you've excluded options.

What are we exploring other than people have the capacity to do things... And that we sometimes don't trust strangers?

 

[Heronblade]

If there was at least some circumstantial evidence there might be reason to hesitate over the decision, but as it is...

Killing everyone that might be responsible without proof can easily end with half the town dead by your hand, without ever catching the real perpetrator.

 

[shootthebandit]

Can I vote hold-him-in-jail-for-a-little-while-I-investigate?

That would be too obvious but i agree its a sensible option

The whole scenario is to see if people would take a chance on killing the man just incase you let him go and he kills again.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

I feel like this scenario is more "would you rather kill an innocent man or not kill an innocent man" than the actual thread title. If there is no evidence that ties him as the killer, let him go, simple as that.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can I vote hold-him-in-jail-for-a-little-while-I-investigate?

That would be too obvious but i agree its a sensible option

The whole scenario is to see if people would take a chance on killing the man just incase you let him go and he kills again.

Ordinarily I'd let him go. But by 19th century Western rationale I'd probably kill him.

 

[senordesol]

I'm pretty much with everyone else. There's no evidence to suggest he had anything to do with it. It's just as likely that someone in-town did than some random stranger from out of town (probably more so, actually).

Essentially, this would be a witch hunt. Something happened that we can't explain so just strike out randomly and hope it goes away. It doesn't really solve any problems.

A better dilemma in this vein would be more like 'The Thing' or 'Devil'. You're in an isolated environment with no means of escape. Someone is killing off the others one-by-one. How do you go about figuring out who it is with the least possible loss of life?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I mean, if I've already lost my moral compass enough that I've become a hangman then I'm probably so jaded and lost at this point, I'd probably hang him.

I'd basically be Judge Dread in this town.

 

[Weaver]

Wait, didn't Stalin say something like "I'd rather hang 10 innocent men than let one guilty one go"?
Pretty sure Stalin wasn't the greatest guy to have as a role model.

Look, there is a reason you need proof of things in legal systems. Imagine you were killed for something you didn't do, how happy would you be about that? Casually killing people isn't something most sane people would want to do.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I would hang him immediately to help cover up the fact that I am the real killer!

 

[hazabaza1]

You have a near infinite amount of opportunities to catch somebody. You can only kill somebody once. If that one time is a fuck up... not worth it I'd say.

 

[FalloutJack]

Tell me, do I get to let the mass murderer go with a Battle Royale collar on his neck?

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

The way I see it, there are four outcomes:
1- you're right, and you kill him
2- you're right, and you let him go
3- he's innocent, and you kill him
4- he's innocent, and you let him go

The only way the problem is solved is if you get option #1. Everything else is just a waste of time.
So, the question you have to ask yourself is, do I feel lucky?
Well, do ya, punk?

 

[thepyrethatburns]

It depends if the stranger is likable or not.

For example, if the stranger was Bobby Kotick or Anita Sarkeesian, I'd probably just hang them and get back to my afternoon nap.

Hell, if both came into town at the same time, I'd hang both and say that one was the killer and the other one the accomplice.