FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Monday Moral Dilemma
Monday Moral Dilemma
Jump to: Newest in thread
It is 1923 and you (the sheriff) are protecting a mass murderer in the jail house against an angry mob who wish to capture him. He has murdered countless amounts of people and a few of the victims family members are in the mob. If the mob is frustrated, many buildings may be destroyed and people may be killed in the ensuing riot. Would you deliver the individual to the mob? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is much more than the basic Dilemma here.
You're job is to protect him until he is served punishment by the justice system (regardless of how much justice is served)
You are then fighting with your own personal dilemma of protecting a man who has no such morale compass.
You are also protecting the mob from themselves, regardless of what he did, they are going to take a life - not something they can take back or walk away from without consequence.
Then the dilemma of the damage they may cause as a result of it, they are not much better than the man himself in their actions all in the name of "justice"
Cut and dry answer in the case of this individual I would. His actions deserve no other form of "justice" but I honestly can't say when I take in account all of the thought process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is much more than the basic Dilemma here.
You're job is to protect him until he is served punishment by the justice system (regardless of how much justice is served)
You are then fighting with your own personal dilemma of protecting a man who has no such morale compass.
You are also protecting the mob from themselves, regardless of what he did, they are going to take a life - not something they can take back or walk away from without consequence.
Then the dilemma of the damage they may cause as a result of it, they are not much better than the man himself in their actions all in the name of "justice"
Cut and dry answer in the case of this individual I would. His actions deserve no other form of "justice" but I honestly can't say when I take in account all of the thought process. "
I'm glad you went in to so much detail
No one else has really cared to elaborate on their answers (not that anyone has to) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is much more than the basic Dilemma here.
You're job is to protect him until he is served punishment by the justice system (regardless of how much justice is served)
You are then fighting with your own personal dilemma of protecting a man who has no such morale compass.
You are also protecting the mob from themselves, regardless of what he did, they are going to take a life - not something they can take back or walk away from without consequence.
Then the dilemma of the damage they may cause as a result of it, they are not much better than the man himself in their actions all in the name of "justice"
Cut and dry answer in the case of this individual I would. His actions deserve no other form of "justice" but I honestly can't say when I take in account all of the thought process.
I'm glad you went in to so much detail
No one else has really cared to elaborate on their answers (not that anyone has to)"
Just more words, I was being simple for clarity  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is 1923 and you (the sheriff) are protecting a mass murderer in the jail house against an angry mob who wish to capture him. He has murdered countless amounts of people and a few of the victims family members are in the mob. If the mob is frustrated, many buildings may be destroyed and people may be killed in the ensuing riot. Would you deliver the individual to the mob?"
No.
I would do my job.
It's not personal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
in 1923 weren't most jailhouses still built of mainly wood - so this angry mob(probably French again)could burn me the Sheriff with the prisoner if they torched the place.Best to let him go to mob |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
No, because nowhere in all that does it say there is irrefutable evidence that he actually did kill the people he's believed to have killed and unless he had done so in front of me (in which case being an armed US sheriff I'd have been within my rights to shoot him dead to prevent him doing so) that evidence would have to be presented and heard in front of a jury to decide how guilt or innocence.
The mob, by trying to take the law into their own hands, would be subject to the powers of me as the sheriff to deploy my deputies to disperse and if necessary arrest them before they broke any laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No. I'm in a position of trust and upholding the law and the man deserves a fair trial. It's for the judge/jury to decide that man's fate. Not mine or the mob's. I get that he never offered that to his victims, but that's what makes him a monster and myself civilised  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No. I'm in a position of trust and upholding the law and the man deserves a fair trial. It's for the judge/jury to decide that man's fate. Not mine or the mob's. I get that he never offered that to his victims, but that's what makes him a monster and myself civilised "
civilisations overated  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No. I'm in a position of trust and upholding the law and the man deserves a fair trial. It's for the judge/jury to decide that man's fate. Not mine or the mob's. I get that he never offered that to his victims, but that's what makes him a monster and myself civilised civilisations overated "
Oh shush Pinocchio |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No, because nowhere in all that does it say there is irrefutable evidence that he actually did kill the people he's believed to have killed and unless he had done so in front of me (in which case being an armed US sheriff I'd have been within my rights to shoot him dead to prevent him doing so) that evidence would have to be presented and heard in front of a jury to decide how guilt or innocence.
The mob, by trying to take the law into their own hands, would be subject to the powers of me as the sheriff to deploy my deputies to disperse and if necessary arrest them before they broke any laws."
It says he has done it, not that he's merely suspected.
Go home, leave the front door open and come back Tuesday. Sometimes there is justice and sometimes there is just us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No... if you do he then you and the mob are no better than he is. Better to hold them off and secure his trial. If he is found guilty then justice can be served |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No. I'm in a position of trust and upholding the law and the man deserves a fair trial. It's for the judge/jury to decide that man's fate. Not mine or the mob's. I get that he never offered that to his victims, but that's what makes him a monster and myself civilised "
Devil's advocate but
Civilised or not, the justice system is far from perfect. So understandable why some have lost their trust in it and want personal justice (ignoring those that want personal justice regardless). So many wrong convictions and punishments being dished out that it is hard not to have a loss of faith in the system.
Innocent people getting sent to prison (or in cases a death sentence, depending on where). Even cases of overwhelming proof getting no punishment or at best little more than a slap on the wrist and a telling off.
Good example is the guy who beat up the police officer causing life changing injuries, he got fuck all punishment in comparison to the crime he committed.
On the flip of that though I do agree. Appointing yourself as judge jury, and executioner is a very dark and twisted path that a large majority of people are unable to handle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"No, because nowhere in all that does it say there is irrefutable evidence that he actually did kill the people he's believed to have killed and unless he had done so in front of me (in which case being an armed US sheriff I'd have been within my rights to shoot him dead to prevent him doing so) that evidence would have to be presented and heard in front of a jury to decide how guilt or innocence.
The mob, by trying to take the law into their own hands, would be subject to the powers of me as the sheriff to deploy my deputies to disperse and if necessary arrest them before they broke any laws.
It says he has done it, not that he's merely suspected.
Go home, leave the front door open and come back Tuesday. Sometimes there is justice and sometimes there is just us."
How do you, as the sheriff, know irrefutably that he has done it though? Unless you were there and witnessed the act (in which case I refer you to my previous post) you're holding him prisoner based on evidence and the law of the land says that evidence has to be heard and decided upon in front of a judge and jury, not to mention examined by both defence and prosecution to confirm it's accuracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No, because nowhere in all that does it say there is irrefutable evidence that he actually did kill the people he's believed to have killed and unless he had done so in front of me (in which case being an armed US sheriff I'd have been within my rights to shoot him dead to prevent him doing so) that evidence would have to be presented and heard in front of a jury to decide how guilt or innocence.
The mob, by trying to take the law into their own hands, would be subject to the powers of me as the sheriff to deploy my deputies to disperse and if necessary arrest them before they broke any laws.
It says he has done it, not that he's merely suspected.
Go home, leave the front door open and come back Tuesday. Sometimes there is justice and sometimes there is just us.
How do you, as the sheriff, know irrefutably that he has done it though? Unless you were there and witnessed the act (in which case I refer you to my previous post) you're holding him prisoner based on evidence and the law of the land says that evidence has to be heard and decided upon in front of a judge and jury, not to mention examined by both defence and prosecution to confirm it's accuracy. "
I do agree with you there is always some doubt with evidence. But let's just say you as the sheriff caught him on the act. You witnessed it with your own eyes (unable to stop it for whatever reason). Extreme and a bit of a perfect storm situation but if it puts you in that position of knowing for sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No. I'm in a position of trust and upholding the law and the man deserves a fair trial. It's for the judge/jury to decide that man's fate. Not mine or the mob's. I get that he never offered that to his victims, but that's what makes him a monster and myself civilised
Devil's advocate but
Civilised or not, the justice system is far from perfect. So understandable why some have lost their trust in it and want personal justice (ignoring those that want personal justice regardless). So many wrong convictions and punishments being dished out that it is hard not to have a loss of faith in the system.
Innocent people getting sent to prison (or in cases a death sentence, depending on where). Even cases of overwhelming proof getting no punishment or at best little more than a slap on the wrist and a telling off.
Good example is the guy who beat up the police officer causing life changing injuries, he got fuck all punishment in comparison to the crime he committed.
On the flip of that though I do agree. Appointing yourself as judge jury, and executioner is a very dark and twisted path that a large majority of people are unable to handle. "
But surely it's a process that needs to be gone through? If they were released on a technicality or for another reason, then the Mob would have their opportunity to exact their revenge after release. That would be out of my nds as the prisoner was no longer under my care |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No. I'm in a position of trust and upholding the law and the man deserves a fair trial. It's for the judge/jury to decide that man's fate. Not mine or the mob's. I get that he never offered that to his victims, but that's what makes him a monster and myself civilised
Devil's advocate but
Civilised or not, the justice system is far from perfect. So understandable why some have lost their trust in it and want personal justice (ignoring those that want personal justice regardless). So many wrong convictions and punishments being dished out that it is hard not to have a loss of faith in the system.
Innocent people getting sent to prison (or in cases a death sentence, depending on where). Even cases of overwhelming proof getting no punishment or at best little more than a slap on the wrist and a telling off.
Good example is the guy who beat up the police officer causing life changing injuries, he got fuck all punishment in comparison to the crime he committed.
On the flip of that though I do agree. Appointing yourself as judge jury, and executioner is a very dark and twisted path that a large majority of people are unable to handle.
But surely it's a process that needs to be gone through? If they were released on a technicality or for another reason, then the Mob would have their opportunity to exact their revenge after release. That would be out of my nds as the prisoner was no longer under my care "
Hands* |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Devil's advocate but
Civilised or not, the justice system is far from perfect. So understandable why some have lost their trust in it and want personal justice (ignoring those that want personal justice regardless). So many wrong convictions and punishments being dished out that it is hard not to have a loss of faith in the system.
Innocent people getting sent to prison (or in cases a death sentence, depending on where). Even cases of overwhelming proof getting no punishment or at best little more than a slap on the wrist and a telling off.
Good example is the guy who beat up the police officer causing life changing injuries, he got fuck all punishment in comparison to the crime he committed.
On the flip of that though I do agree. Appointing yourself as judge jury, and executioner is a very dark and twisted path that a large majority of people are unable to handle.
But surely it's a process that needs to be gone through? If they were released on a technicality or for another reason, then the Mob would have their opportunity to exact their revenge after release. That would be out of my nds as the prisoner was no longer under my care "
Good counter argument! I have nothing to add. Haha
And you are very right. On a personal level (assuming I knew I hady own hard proof he did it) I would hand him over.
On a professional level, I would not hand him over. As a lawman I think professional opinion must always take over personal opinion. If not so much shit would descend in to chaos.
I still don't see it as an easy decision and would hate to actually be in the position like that. Think I might have to change my answer to protect him...for now! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"No, because nowhere in all that does it say there is irrefutable evidence that he actually did kill the people he's believed to have killed and unless he had done so in front of me (in which case being an armed US sheriff I'd have been within my rights to shoot him dead to prevent him doing so) that evidence would have to be presented and heard in front of a jury to decide how guilt or innocence.
The mob, by trying to take the law into their own hands, would be subject to the powers of me as the sheriff to deploy my deputies to disperse and if necessary arrest them before they broke any laws.
It says he has done it, not that he's merely suspected.
Go home, leave the front door open and come back Tuesday. Sometimes there is justice and sometimes there is just us.
How do you, as the sheriff, know irrefutably that he has done it though? Unless you were there and witnessed the act (in which case I refer you to my previous post) you're holding him prisoner based on evidence and the law of the land says that evidence has to be heard and decided upon in front of a judge and jury, not to mention examined by both defence and prosecution to confirm it's accuracy.
I do agree with you there is always some doubt with evidence. But let's just say you as the sheriff caught him on the act. You witnessed it with your own eyes (unable to stop it for whatever reason). Extreme and a bit of a perfect storm situation but if it puts you in that position of knowing for sure. "
As I said in my first post being a sheriff in 1920s America (or even 2019 America) if I witnessed the act taking place then I would be within my rights to use my weapon to apprehend the suspect if necessary, and if I had not deployed that option for whatever reason at the time, and had merely arrested the suspect, then the moment to deploy that form of justice will have passed and the justice system has to be allowed to run it's course regardless.
There is also the consideration, even with irrefutable evidence that the suspect is guilty, that there may have been mitigating circumstances to be taken into account and that can only be found out through the justice system.
Slight aside, but the first series of The Sinner kind of delved into this side of things - starts off with a murder in front of numerous witnesses but as the story unfolds you come to understand that, albeit it being a crime, it may not have been as cut and dried as it appeared at first look. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, to save the lives of many more of his potential victims...this is real right..
As far as I'm aware this is a real dimma that some sheriff in Florida had to deal with"
what did he do? Did he give in to the angry mob or protect him |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, to save the lives of many more of his potential victims...this is real right..
As far as I'm aware this is a real dimma that some sheriff in Florida had to deal withwhat did he do? Did he give in to the angry mob or protect him"
I'm not sure in all honesty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personaly, yes.
Leave the door open & walk away.
Reasoning, 1 person V the greater good of many.
1 person who has commited atrocities, of which there is no doubt of guilt, and I'm assuming due to the location and date, would be served the death penalty.
Against, innocent people who may get hurt, or potentially killed, properties damaged, livelihoods ruined, things that may impact on a much wider scale, entire families forced into poverty & homeless
Yes for the greater good, I'd leave him to the mob. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personaly, yes.
Leave the door open & walk away.
Reasoning, 1 person V the greater good of many.
1 person who has commited atrocities, of which there is no doubt of guilt, and I'm assuming due to the location and date, would be served the death penalty.
Against, innocent people who may get hurt, or potentially killed, properties damaged, livelihoods ruined, things that may impact on a much wider scale, entire families forced into poverty & homeless
Yes for the greater good, I'd leave him to the mob. "
How did you conclude that those that stand to get hurt are innocent people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
About this mass murderer......
Was he a heroic soldier who killed on the orders of his officers ? A hero in his own land but viewed as a murderer in another ?
People are quick to fill in the gaps with assumtpion.
Tell us more O.P. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It would depend on one thing for me. If I'd seen him do some of those things, with my own eyes, then yes, the man will die. As Sheriff, I'd be the one to kill him though, not the Mob.
If I hadn't seen it, I'd take him out of town to a safer location and do my job Lawfully to the best of my ability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'd shoot him myself quickly and cleanly, saving the mob from themselves, myself and the town from their wrath and the criminal from what would likely be a fate worse than death |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
