I've a question for you all:
What would you rather have: twenty-one men, twenty of them guilty of murder, one innocent of any crime whatsoever, put to death, or all twenty-one set free?
Reworded: Would you rather see twenty guilty men walk free, or the twenty guilty men plus one innocent put to death?
Note: you could substitute twenty with any reasonable number. For instance, make it one-hundred guilty men. Does the number of guilty men change your answer?
My answer: I would rather see twenty guilty men walk free, than one innocent put to death (Kelly has volunteered to be the innocent, but I don't want her dead).
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'd rather let them walk free. (the guilty ones might not kill anyone else anyway) Of course I don't think anyone should be executed anyway. I also would mind if I was the innocent person who was killed, as I don't have a death wish like Kelly.
"I'd rather let a hundred guilty men walk free than chase after them." -Chief Wiggum
John, John, John. First Gandalf, now Wiggum. You are a quotation-master.
Oh yes, I am, but I don't think this one was quite as nerdy.
Ahhhhhh...you dont want me dead, how nice (this AND Reese's in one day, who woulda thunk it).
And for the record, any quote from The Simpsons is cool.
"Lisa is a nut
She has a rubber butt
Everytime she turns around,
It goes putt, putt."
-Bart Simpson
I think it depends on the nature of those twenty guilty. If they're guilty of theft or smaller crimes, then sure. Even some murders, as long as their action was spur of the moment and not like they typically are. Twenty serious murders, though, I would not. If just one of them were the cold-blooded murderers, I would let none of them go. Under no circumstances would I let the Raders (BTK), Gacys, Bundys, Ridgways, or Dahmers (or any other of so many serial murderers) out into society if I can help it. Ridgway himself confessed to 48 murders. Disgusting.
x.x
So, Colin, you admit the innocence of the man has nothing to do with your decision? It is simply the degree of murder which the twenty guilty men committed?
That, to me, is absurd. To think that the fate of the innocent man lies not in his hands, but whether or not even one of the guilty men committed murder in cold blood. You propose that we kill the innocent man, in order to possibly prevent other innocents from dying? That's ridiculous. Completely irrational.
Haha, Isaac. I like that plan. Just as long as the innocent one is not hurt, and you are 100% accurate on the guilt of the other 20.
i have to agree with kevin
colin's opinion is irrational
i have to agree with kevin
colin's opinion is irrational
actually i don't have an opinion. no matter whether we kill the guilty people in question, hundreds or thousands of murderers will still be alive and well. Likewise, even if we let the innocent one go free, innocent people are dying at the hands of injustice every day. so really, i'm glad i don't have to make taht decision
Post a Comment