Let the man/woman go. In the event that the person was accused of being a psycho killer they'd probably be on the radar for a while. Also there is always a chance that more will be discovered on the case at a later date.
Poll: another ethics question: would you rather kill an innocent man or let a mass murderer loose?
- Thread starter shootthebandit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well in america it is usually a six year MIN process so arresting him now and after six years if he is still pretty damn guilty. He will hang err.. electric chairred err... lethal injectioned. The latter sounding the most cruel in hindsight.
It's not a very good one I must say. I'd let him go, he's innocent so far and I have no solid reason to believe he did anything. Hardly had to think about it. The 'means to an end' approach here doesn't even work because you have no evidence. Even vague evidence. And I normally go for that approach.
Well, I can only imagine that, In old westerny times, it really depends on what this newcomer looks/ acts like n such. Does he look like he'd pillage and plunder and not give a hoot?
NOT IN MY TOWN!
however, say he's just a joe schmo, or a frail old man or something, then nah, he can pass
NOT IN MY TOWN!
however, say he's just a joe schmo, or a frail old man or something, then nah, he can pass
This is easy, as it boils down to clean numbers, if the probability of him being guilty is below 50%, then strap him to a surgical table and implant a GPS into his chest cavity. If the probability of him being guilty is 50% or above, then kill him. If he is innocent, then he would have nothing to hide, and the GPS would be removed during a routine hospital visit. If he kills someone after he is let loose, then we would have a trace on him, and he would be properly terminated.
How about we hold a good ol' fashioned trial? There's nowhere near enough information presented in the question to make this kind of judgment. Is there any evidence at all linking the stranger to the crime or did he just show up in the wrong town at the wrong time? You know, generally there's a thing called "due process", even in the old west. You didn't just haul some guy in and hang him just for the hell of it, despite what the spaghetti western movies would have you believe. The hangman wasn't judge, jury, and executioner.
Even for a hypothetical question like this. If it were the case that the hangman was the judge, jury, and executioner, if I were in that position I'd still want evidence gathered and cases presented.
Even for a hypothetical question like this. If it were the case that the hangman was the judge, jury, and executioner, if I were in that position I'd still want evidence gathered and cases presented.
Yeah... I think this question shows the OP's lack of understanding of frontier justice in the old west... not even in the movies is it depicted as that barbaric... and the movies are ridiculous exaggerations.
As the hangman, I'd defer to the judgement of the local lawmen and the results of the trial they put on (even if it's just a one-sided farce). It's not my decision to make, I'm just the guy who sets up the gibbet and pulls the lever.
As the hangman, I'd defer to the judgement of the local lawmen and the results of the trial they put on (even if it's just a one-sided farce). It's not my decision to make, I'm just the guy who sets up the gibbet and pulls the lever.
I'd hang him AND the rest of the surviving towns people just to be sure. It's gotta be one of em.shootthebandit said:
With zero evidence presented, it's no question that I would let hem go.
To make the question a bit more interesting, I would say add in some fairly convincing evidence and some evidence to the contrary.
Of course, the obvious answer to both questions is that I throw him in a river and jump in after the child or dog instead, letting him drown.
To make the question a bit more interesting, I would say add in some fairly convincing evidence and some evidence to the contrary.
Of course, the obvious answer to both questions is that I throw him in a river and jump in after the child or dog instead, letting him drown.
Sir, you forgot that you need to tie the river to a railroad track first.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
As for me, if I'm not sure he's guilty, I won't hang him (assuming for a moment that I am in favor of death penalty, which I'm not). Not only might I be executing an innocent man, the real killer might still be out there so I'm killing a guy for nothing.
Or just hang everyone, only way to be sure. Then, grin in a most sinister manner at the camera, and reveal that the killer was me, all along! Aha. Aha-ha. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!*coughcough* 'scuse me, got carried away there.
?Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer? - Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, 1766
The title is so incredibly miss leading.
Considering the evidence is speculation only. Release him.
Considering the evidence is speculation only. Release him.
I would hang him. A hangman doesn't really have a choice in this matter, when he's told to hang someone his opinion doesn't matter. If this guy has been sentenced to death then it's my duty to make this happen regardless of what I think.
Now if I weren't being a smartass here I would say that I am completely against the death penalty in the first place. Even if I knew he was guilty I wouldn't opt to hang him in my modern understanding of ethics, Without any kind of proof I would say no.
Honestly, this scenario is pretty bad because it puts us in a situation where we would have been raised to have a completely different view of ethics than what we have growing up in a modern world. I am pretty sure 90% of us would have decided to hang him if we actually were in this scenario simply because that's what would have been the better choice back then.
Now if I weren't being a smartass here I would say that I am completely against the death penalty in the first place. Even if I knew he was guilty I wouldn't opt to hang him in my modern understanding of ethics, Without any kind of proof I would say no.
Honestly, this scenario is pretty bad because it puts us in a situation where we would have been raised to have a completely different view of ethics than what we have growing up in a modern world. I am pretty sure 90% of us would have decided to hang him if we actually were in this scenario simply because that's what would have been the better choice back then.
I'd hang the guy. As sad as it is, the fact is that entire point of punishing a crime isn't rehabilitation, keeping harmful people off the streets, or whatever else it's claimed to be for, those are just side benefits. It's to scare the crap out of everyone so that they don't even THINK about committing a crime, and if that includes the guilt and fear generated from innocent people potentially being punished for what another did so much the better.
It's irrelevant if innocent people are punished for another's crime, that's always happened and always will happen no matter how effective any criminal justice system is. In the OP's scenario there's little possibility of effectively determining who committed just about any crime since there's a severe lack of actual evidence, the execution is more to quell a town's fears than anything else.
It's irrelevant if innocent people are punished for another's crime, that's always happened and always will happen no matter how effective any criminal justice system is. In the OP's scenario there's little possibility of effectively determining who committed just about any crime since there's a severe lack of actual evidence, the execution is more to quell a town's fears than anything else.
If I started blindly killing potentially innocent people to find a guilty man, at what point do I stop? You might not find the original mass murderer by killing innocent men, but you'll soon enough find yourself a second mass murderer.shootthebandit said:
So no, I would not kill a potentially innocent man.