PDA

View Full Version : what would you do?


Frostblood
22nd Nov 2001, 02:30 PM
...if you were a judge at a trial. There are two suspects, and you know one of them is guilty of multiple murders, but you dont know who. What do you do?

Snarf
25th Jan 2002, 01:00 PM
Get a new job.

Rukee
25th Jan 2002, 01:22 PM
Deal with the trails one at a time. If it was multiple murders....they would deffenatly be seperate.

Claw
25th Jan 2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Rukee
Deal with the trails one at a time. If it was multiple murders....they would deffenatly be seperate.

He meant it differently... he meant you know one is quilty, the other isn't and you have to decide now... prolly another ethics question - ya could sentence both to death and be on the safe side :lol:

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 06:12 PM
if it was a case of multiple murders, the judge doesnt decide, the jurry does.
so this topic fails. please re-word and try again

Rukee
25th Jan 2002, 06:12 PM
if it`s a murder trail...there will be a jurry....they disside wether or not the guilt.....not the judge.

Rukee
25th Jan 2002, 06:14 PM
like at the same time there!! :p

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 06:14 PM
i beat ya to it :p:p

Claw
25th Jan 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Rukee
if it`s a murder trail...there will be a jurry....they disside wether or not the guilt.....not the judge.

1. it was meant as an ethical quiz I believe
2. considering Frost posted this, maybe we shouldn't assume it's a US court...
3. pah@thread

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Claw


2. maybe we shouldn't assume it's a US court...


thats the only thing im gonna asume it is, cause i know jack **** about countries judical system

lucifix
25th Jan 2002, 07:11 PM
um, what? i dont get it........like two people on trial at the same time???

Claw
25th Jan 2002, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by GoAt


thats the only thing im gonna asume it is, cause i know jack **** about countries judical system

Since the whole question is not about national judical systems that doesn't matter...

Claw
25th Jan 2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by lucifix
um, what? i dont get it........like two people on trial at the same time???

It's actually a rather bad example... it's hypothetical and philosophical (I guess) and nowhere related to reality

Balton
25th Jan 2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by GoAt


thats the only thing im gonna asume it is, cause i know jack **** about countries judical system

http://www.planetunreal.com/fragadelic/balton/pics/ignorant.jpg

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 08:06 PM
balton has gone on a rampage!!!
RAMPAGE

lmfaorofl

Balton
25th Jan 2002, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by GoAt
balton has gone on a rampage!!!
RAMPAGE

lmfaorofl

as I say. there is nothing behind your arguments. nothing. eve now. speechless...

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 08:09 PM
my laughter at your pic posting rant is an argument?

eve now?

Balton
25th Jan 2002, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by GoAt
my laughter at your pic posting rant is an argument?

eve now?

http://www.caprine.co.nz/images/CASHMEREG1.GIF

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 08:11 PM
thats ewe.
and a ewe is a female sheep.

Balton
25th Jan 2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by GoAt
thats ewe.
and a ewe is a female sheep.

yeah, thats what YOU should know

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 08:14 PM
uh, okay.

i will write that down so i wont forget and i will always know

Lruce Bee
25th Jan 2002, 08:17 PM
The answer is in the question as always.....

You have two suspects and we assume one of them must have commited the murder - but it could have been a joint effort - in which case both would be guilty..........

Lruce

GoAt
25th Jan 2002, 08:19 PM
yes, that could be true.
but here (in the US) its usualy left up to the jurry to decide. unless its a small claims court, then the judge decides

Lruce Bee
25th Jan 2002, 08:23 PM
That kid getting bowled over by the ball is the funniest thing I've ever seen - I just cant stop looking at it.........

Lruce

QUALTHWAR
25th Jan 2002, 08:29 PM
release the hounds

SpiritWalker
25th Jan 2002, 08:34 PM
If I were judge.. and could make the decision...
I would tell them both (seperately) that I was going to have them killed in the morning...
the next morning.. I would check to see who is sleeping..
see the guilty guy would be "ok" cause he knew that he was caught..
the Innocent guy.. well he would be so scared that he would be throwing his own poo at the walls and looking at it for a message from God

JTRipper
31st Jan 2002, 11:38 PM
I'd stage a cage match, and sell HUGELY marked up tickets. Two men enter, one man leaves - and as the more agressive of the two, odds are slightly more in favor of him as the killer. Volt 'im.

Rukee
1st Feb 2002, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by JTRipper
I'd stage a cage match, and sell HUGELY marked up tickets. Two men enter, one man leaves - and as the more agressive of the two, odds are slightly more in favor of him as the killer. Volt 'im.

lmao!!
then if the winner kills the looser....you can prosicute him on the new murder too!! :p

Evil_Cope
1st Feb 2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by The Spiritwalker
If I were judge.. and could make the decision...
I would tell them both (seperately) that I was going to have them killed in the morning...
the next morning.. I would check to see who is sleeping..
see the guilty guy would be "ok" cause he knew that he was caught..
the Innocent guy.. well he would be so scared that he would be throwing his own poo at the walls and looking at it for a message from God


that sounds awfully falable to me.

what if the innocent guy is a confident, self assured person who beleaves all will turn out right in the end and the killer is a cowardly survivor?


king solomon was probably wrong too. it didnt show who was the real mother, just who cared most. and even thats not certain...

Zarkazm
1st Feb 2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by mister_cope



that sounds awfully falable to me.

what if the innocent guy is a confident, self assured person who beleaves all will turn out right in the end and the killer is a cowardly survivor?

Quite. And I don't see the killer being calm just 'cos it was "right" he was caught - I have the naggin' feeling most criminals see it kinda differently.

Frostblood
2nd Feb 2002, 03:54 AM
The point of it was, do you imprison an innocent man and at the same time imprison a murderer or let both go?

JTRipper
2nd Feb 2002, 08:12 AM
So the cage match isn't an option?

Evil_Cope
2nd Feb 2002, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Frostblood
The point of it was, do you imprison an innocent man and at the same time imprison a murderer or let both go?


if the murderer is of the hanible lector, mad serial killer type, the type who WILL kill again if released, best to imprison both to save many. the innocent man will have chance to apeal anyway.

if it was, like, more of a crime of passion or similar, where its unlikely that the murderer would EVER kill again then both should go free. punishment wouldnt solve anything, and as the murderer is more or less harmless you arent protecting anyone.

JTRipper
2nd Feb 2002, 01:53 PM
I'm still a little unclear on why you need to convict or acquit both...

Evil_Cope
2nd Feb 2002, 01:58 PM
'cos frosty said so.

Frostblood
2nd Feb 2002, 02:05 PM
'cos theres not enough evidence to decide between them.

JTRipper
2nd Feb 2002, 02:30 PM
Then you acquit them, rather than waste the time of an appeals court. And then you have some stern words with the DA.

Evil_Cope
2nd Feb 2002, 02:32 PM
what if one is a hannibl lector esque serial killer then?

youd acquit them both, knowing that he WOULD kill again?

BangOut
2nd Feb 2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Lruce Bee
That kid getting bowled over by the ball is the funniest thing I've ever seen - I just cant stop looking at it.........

i agree

JTRipper
2nd Feb 2002, 02:35 PM
No, because when his lawyer appeals, it'll just get thrown out in a higher court. Friggin' DA never should have brought the case in the first place. Forget the stern words, put him up on review.

Evil_Cope
2nd Feb 2002, 02:37 PM
i dont really think thats what this is about, but you probably have a point. :)

Zarkazm
2nd Feb 2002, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by JTRipper
No, because when his lawyer appeals, it'll just get thrown out in a higher court. Friggin' DA never should have brought the case in the first place. Forget the stern words, put him up on review.

Yes, quite. But as I said before, it's more of a philosophical question really. A metaphor; noone's really into discussion the judical system fo a particular nation here.

JTRipper
3rd Feb 2002, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Zarkazm
Yes, quite. But as I said before, it's more of a philosophical question really. A metaphor; noone's really into discussion the judical system fo a particular nation here.

Ok, so no cage match and appeals don't matter. I guess it depends on whether I'm an appointed judge or an elected one then. I know what the media'll do to the story, so my odds of getting out of the case with a job depend on that.

Evil_Cope
3rd Feb 2002, 09:47 AM
anyone else get the feeling someone is trying to dodge the question?

JTRipper
5th Feb 2002, 01:46 AM
No, I answered the question that was asked. When it was clarified, some information was missing - like the proposed penalty, etc. It's hard to make a value judgement when you have no ideas what the values are.

Zarkazm
5th Feb 2002, 09:39 AM
You set the values of course. How often do I have to emphasize it's a philosophical question... if you feel like saying "Let both fight to the death and proclaim the loser guilty" that's your choice, however idiotic.

JTRipper
5th Feb 2002, 03:51 PM
The basic question has nothing to do with courts and so forth, I realize. The question is - which is morally more acceptable, to punish an innocent man to see justice done to the guilty, or to preserve the rights of the innocent man by letting a murderer loose. In fact, even the crime of murder isn't neccessary to the question, but it'll serve.

There's too many variables. First, the punishment. If it's a wet spitball to the forehead propelled by an 8th grader, then you convict them both and move on. Obviously, it's going to be stiffer than that. If it's going to be a ride on Old Sparky, then you set them both free. But Frostblood said prison, not death. Obviously, there's a lot of ground between the spitball and the chair, and at some point you have to lean from favoring conviction to favoring acquittal.

Second, it's the character of the murderer, as someone else mentioned. There were multiple murders, but that fact alone doesn't establish a pathological disposition to commit murder. If it's certain that the murderer will kill again if released, an innocent man's freedom isn't worth an unknown number of lives. If it's fairly certain that he won't, you have to fall back to weighing the punishments. Again, there's a spectrum of uncertainty between the two, and somewhere in the middle is a point where the likelyhood doesn't dictate a guilty verdict anymore.

Like I said, too much missing info to render a verdict.

It was the winner I was going to sentence, btw. ;)

BangOut
5th Feb 2002, 04:45 PM
You send them both to jail.

Why?

-Assuming: There are more innocent people than guilty.
-You let them both free: the murderer may continue to murder- no one is served.
-You send them both to jail: the innocent majority is served while one person is wronged. They also know that they may be wrongly jailed and everyone is scared ****less not to commit crimes.

DigitalW
5th Feb 2002, 11:55 PM
Step back and ask yourselves......With all the people that are murdered each year, would one single killer on the loose or locked up make much difference????