Poll: Scapegoating the innocent, can it be a good thing?

[Dirty Hipsters]

Here's a hypothetical situation that we were discussing in my Philosophy of Law class that I thought I would put to the people of the escapist:

Spoiler: Somewhat long hypothetical story

You are the sheriff of a small town in the wild west. One night a child gets clubbed into unconsciousness in your town in an alley between the saloon and the whore house. The child was clubbed with a walking stick belonging to the town drunk, and now a mob has formed outside of your jail, looking for you to arrest the drunk.

The drunk however is innocent, and you know this because at the time that the crime was committed he was actually locked in your jail for being publicly drunk and disorderly. You also know that he is innocent because the guilty party has come to you and confessed.

The person who ACTUALLY clubbed the child is the town doctor. He was attempting to teach the child a lesson about not wondering around the saloon and whore house at night, and just wanted to give him a small rap on the head to scare him, but accidentally clubbed him harder than he wanted to, knocking him unconscious. The doctor provided the child with medical aid at the scene, and the child is injured, but will make a full recovery and be completely fine. The doctor feels sincerely apologetic about the whole situation, and is unlikely to ever do something like that again.

You don't really want to tell the crowd that the doctor is in fact the one who clubbed the child, because if you do then no one will trust the doctor again, and if you were to send the doctor to prison it would be very difficult to get another doctor out in the middle of the frontier, so doing so would put the town in danger. It would also be very easy to scapegoat the drunk, since he was passed out at the time and has no recollection of his actions. The drunk is also known to be somewhat violent when under the influence of alcohol, and spending some time in prison would probably sober him up and help him suppress his violent tendencies.

Now, in this hypothetical situation, it seems that the course of action that would serve the greatest public good would be to scapegoat the drunk. It would leave the doctor in the town, and it would even be to the drunk's own benefit because it would help to rehabilitate him and stop his drinking, and help him keep his violent tendencies under control (perhaps saving him from committing a violent crime later in life).

As the Sheriff what would you personally do? Would you do what justice demands, which would be to out the doctor, leaving the town doctor-less, while protecting the drunk, or would you do what is in the best interests of the town, scapegoat the innocent drunk and protect the doctor from discovery?

 

[Sir Legendhead]

I'd place the blame where it lies. No evidence has been presented of the drunk having violent tendencies while the doctor has admitted to assault and child abuse. What if you jail the innocent man and the guilty one goes on to cause more "accidental" injuries in the future?

 

[Sam Warrior]

Personally I'd stick the Dr in jail for a bit, if he was needed he could always come out again.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Life's not black and white. I'd have to discuss it with the doctor, the child and the drunk. Inform them fully of my situation and hope we can arrive at a compromise. Is the drunk willing to take the fall to keep a doctor in the town? How much does the child care about true justice? Can the doctor live with hiding the truth?

All this depends on the doctor not being able to be forgiven by the townsfolk for this one offense, as you explained:

My ideal situation would be the drunk taking the blame but the doctor recompense him in some way and everyone in the know staying silent. That way the crowd's happy, the drunk's getting either money or healthcare and the doctor's reputation is unscathed, allowing healthcare for the town.

 

[GothmogII]

Umm...why does it have to be an either or? If the Drunk is innocent he's innocent! Secondly, the Doctor can still be punished in this magical frontier town with no apparent access to civilization -_- just have the authorities intimate to him that things could go very badly for him if this ever happens again, after all they've hardly shown themselves to be bastions of justice if they even considered letting the drunk take the fall.

i.e. the solution is: Don't tell the townspeople at all. Or, just that the suspect has been found etc.

 

[Bobbity]

As much as I would like to protect the doctor, I'd have to hand him over. Sometimes doing what is right requires sacrifice.

PS: How did the doctor get a hold of the drunk's walking stick?
PPS: Can't we just unofficially tell the doctor off? I'm sure that the mitigating circumstances are enough to see that he doesn't actually end up in jail.

 

[manythings]

People are very quick to revise their opinion of a doctor when they injure themselves. He committed a crime so meet halfway and have him work it off somehow (And never take your eyes off the bastard just in case).

 

[Tulks]

Why need the town be left without a doctor? As the highest legal authority in the area, you can choose not to jail the doc without framing the innocent drunkard.
There's even a chance that the angry mob could be swayed by the doctor's explanation and apology.

Besides, this is supposedly the frontier. Attitudes towards child assault were very different then...

 

[HotFezz8]

drunk goes to jail, apologetic doctor gets told taht if he ever does something similar again hes in the shit permenatly.

you need a doctor more than you need a drunk, and whilst i hang a qurestion mark over the doctors actions, hes more importantm and you gain nothing blaming him.

 

[Will Holmes]

I would secretly fine the doctor, jail the drunk (but not for long), then give the money to the drunk when he gets out.

Officially, the jailtime would be for hitting the child, but unofficially, it would be to rehabilitate him.

 

[Woodsey]

I would tell the crowd to fuck off, and that if they wanted to intervene in matters of law they could apply to join this here Sheriff's constabulary.

I would then talk to the doctor, caution him, and send him on his way.

What's "beneficial" isn't what's right, and what's right isn't always easy.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

Other: The child should quit his complaining.

Or rather doctor should be judged for his actions but be lenient against him.

 

[s0p0g]

if i had to put the doctor in jail, he could still treat patients there, so what's the big deal?
also, he'll probably only be locked up for a short time.
justice has been served.

i'd also talk to the drunk (when he's sober again) about the other option i had, and that i'll act accordantly the next time i have the opportunity to do so. maybe that can get him to stay away from the bottle.

 

[Nexus4]

Rat out the doctor simply because he's displayed signs of regret and remorse, his consciousness will catch up with him soon and he'll admit the blame if I were to out the drunkard. Whilst I would like to kill two birds with one stone, I'd rather not lose my job and have an angry mob come after me.

 

[Coldie]

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

(Finding a way to deal with any consequences is left as an exercise for the reader.)

 

[Eisenfaust]

well my understanding of wild-west ethics comes from Deadwood... which would tell me to say... the kids still alive, only beaten unconscious, which probably happened a lot back then anyway, so the likelihood of there being a mob in the first place is quite small...

even so, where's the third option, "explain to the mob about the drunk being locked up at the time, say there's no way to know who did it, everyone goes home"?

means you don't have to unnecessarily screw either, and they're both probably quite useful... (a town drunk would have been a major economic boon in whatever pub he drank, so he's quite useful)

 

[SckizoBoy]

This response is based on the story being completely true (i.e. all character professed statements being true).

Scapegoat the drunk.

What everyone seems to forget is that punishment for the commitment of crimes, as its primary objective, should make the perpetrator feel sincerely remorseful for the crime committed. It just so happens that jail-time is an incentive to make that happen. It also makes everyone else feel a little better (and as a rule of thumb, humans are a race of liars).

Based on the story, the doctor genuinely regrets having whacked the kid, so treating the kid and feeling shit about the whole episode is punishment enough. As for the drunk, well, he's unapologetic, and unless he has a bottomless pocket, the bars will continue without him and he gets to sober up, so win all around.

Advice to the sheriff: visit the good doctor every so often to make sure he doesn't suddenly think child abuse may be his true calling in life.

 

[TheWhiteRapper]

Well is this a trick question, because if the kid and the doctor are on good terms now it's now like the kid is going to press charges?

So give the doctor a stern unofficial warning, the drunk wasn't even involved, and tell the crowd that unless they want to be arrested for obstruction of justice that they need to stop cloggging up my jail doors. Publicly, we'll tell them the doctor's story. Now the better question is why was the doctor using the drunk's cane? If this was intentional for the purpose of framing, then jail/fine the bastard. He'll get out eventually, and if people REALLY need medical care they'll go to him. The drunk really isn't relavent in this case besides the cane, which if the doctor just found, makes the drunk completely irrelevant.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Umm...why does it have to be an either or? If the Drunk is innocent he's innocent! Secondly, the Doctor can still be punished in this magical frontier town with no apparent access to civilization -_- just have the authorities intimate to him that things could go very badly for him if this ever happens again, after all they've hardly shown themselves to be bastions of justice if they even considered letting the drunk take the fall.

i.e. the solution is: Don't tell the townspeople at all. Or, just that the suspect has been found etc.

Not telling the townspeople doesn't work. There's a mob standing outside of your jail, and they're pissed, almost ready for a good old fashioned frontier justice lynching. They aren't willing to take "we can't find the culprit" as an excuse. If you don't give them the doctor AND tell them that the drunk is innocent, they'll just find another innocent person to go after. You have to give them someone no matter what.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well is this a trick question, because if the kid and the doctor are on good terms now it's now like the kid is going to press charges?

So give the doctor a stern unofficial warning, the drunk wasn't even involved, and tell the crowd that unless they want to be arrested for obstruction of justice that they need to stop cloggging up my jail doors. Publicly, we'll tell them the doctor's story. Now the better question is why was the doctor using the drunk's cane? If this was intentional for the purpose of framing, then jail/fine the bastard. He'll get out eventually, and if people REALLY need medical care they'll go to him. The drunk really isn't relavent in this case besides the cane, which if the doctor just found, makes the drunk completely irrelevant.

The kid never saw the doctor. It was dark and the doctor came up behind him. The kid cannot identify anyone, and there is no evidence at all of the doctor's involvement except for his confession.

The doctor was using the cane just because it was there. This happened in the alley next to the saloon. The drunk probably dropped the cane there earlier before he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, and the doctor found it. The doctor didn't have intention of framing the drunk, it just happened.