Hypothetical murder case bonanza!

[Elfer]

Ok, so here's an idea I saw in a topic way back when (several years back when...), but I think it'll be more interesting to post it in politics, and I'll clean up the presentation a bit to make it easier for the eyes and brain to chew up and digest.

IMPORTANT NOTES BEFORE WE BEGIN:
- Since this is a hypothetical situation, certain things will be assumed. Impossible things. MAD things. Things that no sane human could ever expect to manifest themselves in reality. In fact, just so people don't bring this up, I will explicitly mark my crazy parameters in the topic. That said, the point of this topic is not to reach a resolution on a real-world issue. At best, it is a thought experiment designed to raise some debate about our motivations and thought processes.
- This is not a topic about the death penalty. There's already a billion topics about the death penalty, and if you want to debate it, go there. This topic is for my stupid little game and for fucking with people's heads. Understand?

Now that that's out of the way, let's begin:

You are a judge presiding over a murder case (impossible parameter #1). The man accused has been found guilty by absolutely 100% irrefutable evidence (impossible parameter #2) or a completely reliable confession, it is not important which. For discussion purposes, I will leave the nature of the crime ambiguous, just in case your answer is different based on the details.

Here's the fun part: It is also 100% absolutely certain that for the rest of his life, this man will commit no more crimes nor transgressions against another human being (impossible parameter #3). He will never do anyone wrong again, no matter what. In this impossible situation, this is for sure, so don't bother debating it. As with the part above, his future positive contributions to society are left ambiguous, as well as whether or not he has a family, etc.

It will also be assumed that if sent to prison, he won't help any inmates turn their life around or anything like that, and with that and any other factors I may not have considered, no pragmatic good can be accomplished by him being sent to prison, only bad things, and conversely, again in a pragmatic sense, nothing bad will come of his release, with only the possibility of good things (impossible parameter #4).

The question is, do you punish him for the crime?

[Korriken]

mmm yep. you punish him according to the law, because if you don't it sets a terrible precedence.

[Elfer]

At 4/6/07 11:11 PM, Korriken wrote: mmm yep. you punish him according to the law, because if you don't it sets a terrible precedence.

Ok, before this idea gets out of hand, this is also the only guy who can prove that he will never do anything bad again, and you know that for sure. No future cases will be affected by this, because the situation is unique.

[Politics]

If he'll do no wrong (and of course, this doesn't apply to reality), there's no reason to punish him.

The logical train here being: The point of punishment is to rehabilitate denizens of a society, so that they can benefit that society in the future. If we just want to punish criminals because they're jerks and we're hypocrites, then we might as well just kill them all in the most painful, humiliating and entertaining way possible, with little regard to what the actually crime committed was.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Wouldn't it be great if justice was purely black or white? Since the justice system isn't at all based on lex talionis, I find it impossible to pass judgment in a situation devoid of so many essential details.

[Elfer]

At 4/7/07 12:09 AM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: Wouldn't it be great if justice was purely black or white? Since the justice system isn't at all based on lex talionis, I find it impossible to pass judgment in a situation devoid of so many essential details.

No, see, the extra details you're allowed to fill in however you like. Maybe he killed a thousand genius babies, or maybe he killed an elderly cancerous crack addict who liked to pee on people.

The point of the ambiguity was to allow posters to say how they would respond based on different sets of details.

[fahrenheit]

Shouldnt a hypothetical situation be likely, or somewhat realistic?

[Elfer]

At 4/7/07 12:28 AM, fahrenheit wrote: Shouldnt a hypothetical situation be likely, or somewhat realistic?

Not necessarily, otherwise I could just use a case study. This is a thought experiment. Let's try to stay on topic here.

[Reality-x420]

At 4/7/07 12:01 AM, Politics wrote: If he'll do no wrong (and of course, this doesn't apply to reality), there's no reason to punish him.

The logical train here being: The point of punishment is to rehabilitate denizens of a society, so that they can benefit that society in the future. If we just want to punish criminals because they're jerks and we're hypocrites, then we might as well just kill them all in the most painful, humiliating and entertaining way possible, with little regard to what the actually crime committed was.

I agree 100%. If the accused would never EVER do another crime ever again, there would be no point in punishing him/her. But, they still need to serve some kind of "repayment" because thats the law, and when u disobey the law, (and get caught) ;), u HAVE to deal with the punishment. So if i was "hypothetically" the judge, from a judges point of view, presented with the right evidence, would have no choice but to punish the accused. Sad But True. :[

[Der-Ubermensch]

Dura Lex, Sed Lex. Let the bastard hang.

[ForkRobotik]

This is a wacky thread. First off, in America the "penal institution" is meant to punish offenders, which means, he should technically be sent to jail for what he did. However, in my country(Canada) we have a rehabilitation system that is all about reforming offenders of the criminal code. This means that instead of getting gang raped and being forced to do slave labour for corporations that own the jails, prisoners are given oppurtunities here like education and other programs to help them rebuild their life when the get out of jail, rather than coming out with a bunch of friends to commit more crimes with.

Also, i would think the answer people give is going to depend on their personal philosophies and ideologies that they follow. A cynical rightwinger is more likely to say PUNISH!(as in Silent Night Deadly Night Part 2! ) whereas a positive and more openly(as in open society) liberal person is more likely to say let him go. Either way, you'll get the same kind of response if you were to ask whether or not pot should be legal, considering that no one is harmed(there's no victim), and no one has died from smoking a joint(which i feel is personally moot-people die from doing legal but stupid things all the time). Hardass Rightwingers are going to say punish, and lefties are going to say toke for peace!

Also, what's the point of this experiment? As in what are you trying to get out of it?

[Memorize]

At 4/7/07 12:01 AM, Politics wrote: If he'll do no wrong (and of course, this doesn't apply to reality), there's no reason to punish him.

So if I go and kill someone and prove I will not do it again, I should go unpunished?

WTF?!

[Elfer]

At 4/7/07 01:02 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 12:01 AM, Politics wrote: If he'll do no wrong (and of course, this doesn't apply to reality), there's no reason to punish him.

So if I go and kill someone and prove I will not do it again, I should go unpunished?

WTF?!

That's what we're trying to determine here, isn't it?

[Memorize]

At 4/7/07 01:05 AM, Elfer wrote:

That's what we're trying to determine here, isn't it?

So what if I never do it again. I may very well not get another speeding ticket, but that still doesn't mean I don't have to pay the fine.

[fahrenheit]

At 4/7/07 01:02 AM, Memorize wrote: So if I go and kill someone and prove I will not do it again, I should go unpunished?

Why do you punish someone?
You do it to teach them not to do it again, or to entirely prevent them (prison or death). If you know they wont (which in real life you wont, but in this situation you do) why waste money teaching them to not do it again when you know they wont?

[Politics]

At 4/7/07 01:02 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 12:01 AM, Politics wrote: If he'll do no wrong (and of course, this doesn't apply to reality), there's no reason to punish him.

So if I go and kill someone and prove I will not do it again, I should go unpunished?

WTF?!

Like I meant to convey in the "and of course, this doesn't happen in reality part," you could never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would never wrong again in reality; so in our world, no, you should be punished. However, in this case study world, it can only burden society to punish him.

[Memorize]

At 4/7/07 01:08 AM, Politics wrote:

However, in this case study world, it can only burden society to punish him.

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Punishment as a form of rehabilitation? How about punishment for the sake of punishment? transgression against moral or judicial codes of conduct? Human beings are far too stupid to be granted so much leeway and credit.

[Politics]

Well, I'd imagine the point of this thought experiment is just that: discussion of the reasoning behind punishment. I'd only be repeating myself if I reiterated my view that politics should favour positive consequences, and not just appeal to human emotions and urges, so there's not much else for me to say.

Kudos to Elfer, though, for creating a fascinating, thought-provoking thread.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/7/07 01:17 AM, Politics wrote: Well, I'd imagine the point of this thought experiment is just that: discussion of the reasoning behind punishment. I'd only be repeating myself if I reiterated my view that politics should favour positive consequences, and not just appeal to human emotions and urges, so there's not much else for me to say.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but not many people in this day in age are worthy of that much consideration.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/7/07 01:07 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 01:05 AM, Elfer wrote:

That's what we're trying to determine here, isn't it?

So what if I never do it again. I may very well not get another speeding ticket, but that still doesn't mean I don't have to pay the fine.

It's not about getting speeding tickets it's about speeding. And the point of giving out tickets is to prevent people from violating traffic law. If it's been 100% proven (which is not "I SWEAR I'LL NEVER DO IT AGAIN) then there's no point in giving a ticket, because it's point is to deter someone from doing an action. If we know there is no chance that the action will occur again then there's no point in trying to deter someone from doing someone you know they're not going to do.

[Elfer]

At 4/7/07 01:10 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 01:08 AM, Politics wrote:

However, in this case study world, it can only burden society to punish him.

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

How so? In what way does it benefit society to punish him in this scenario?

[MortifiedPenguins]

He broke a law.

Law dictates that he be either sent to jail for most of his life or executed.

Whether or not he is ot going to reform or not is pointless.

We have legal laws and precedents set in place.
You have to follow them.

[Elfer]

However, in cases where there's an extremely unusual situation, it's not unheard of to break rules like that to fit the situation.

Are you saying that the law should be inflexible no matter how inappropriate it is given the circumstances?

[Memorize]

At 4/7/07 09:29 AM, Elfer wrote:

How so? In what way does it benefit society to punish him in this scenario?

How is it Justice that he get a free pass for murder?

Don't ask stupid questions.

At 4/7/07 03:59 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

It's not about getting speeding tickets it's about speeding. And the point of giving out tickets is to prevent people from violating traffic law.

Ok, i'm going to kill your mother and prove i'll never do anything like that again. Don't come to the court house, your opinion on the matter will be useless by then.

Also, speeding tickets are also a way to... you know... get money.

Haha, you're such a fucking hypocrite.

[Elfer]

At 4/7/07 01:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 09:29 AM, Elfer wrote:

How so? In what way does it benefit society to punish him in this scenario?

How is it Justice that he get a free pass for murder?

Don't ask stupid questions.

Don't call my questions stupid if you aren't going to answer them. What benefit to society is there in locking him up?

[Ravariel]

At 4/7/07 03:10 PM, Elfer wrote:
Don't call my questions stupid if you aren't going to answer them. What benefit to society is there in locking him up?

The message to future offenders: "Don't do that shit, or we'll lock you up!"

[Politics]

At 4/7/07 03:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: The message to future offenders: "Don't do that shit, or we'll lock you up!"

Precedence is negated in the third post:

At 4/6/07 11:13 PM, Elfer wrote: Ok, before this idea gets out of hand, this is also the only guy who can prove that he will never do anything bad again, and you know that for sure. No future cases will be affected by this, because the situation is unique.

Other situations will not be affected in this case-study world.

[JakeHero]

If it were me, I'd still punish him. I believe the penal system is in place for two purposes: to rehibilitate, and to punish criminals for their crimes.

Since you let us fill in the details of the crime, Elfer, I'll say this.

If it was second degree murder, I'd give him life in prison.

If it was first degree murder, I'd have him executed.

Even if we know with a 100% certainty that he will never commit another crime in his life; we cannot allow good deeds to go unpunished.

[Ravariel]

At 4/7/07 03:46 PM, Politics wrote:

At 4/6/07 11:13 PM, Elfer wrote: Ok, before this idea gets out of hand, this is also the only guy who can prove that he will never do anything bad again, and you know that for sure. No future cases will be affected by this, because the situation is unique.

Other situations will not be affected in this case-study world.

Ok, the original impossible assumptions I can roll with, but nothing is without consequence, so my suspension of disbelief has now busted a leafspring. In such an impossible world, any justice system would be ridiculous and inconsequential...

If this man was smart enough to be able to prove his compliance with the law to a 100% accuracy, he would also be smart enough to realize that he deserved the punishment for the crime itself. Lock him up.