Hypothetical Punishment and Justice Question

[RocketManJames]

Suppose we have a society where it is lawful to commit murder as an act of revenge for certain crimes (say the murder of your spouse or child), but only if the evidence is crystal clear and more or less undeniable.

Say that someone kills a man's wife. The killer admits this to the man in public, and the man kills him. This would be legal in this society.

Now, what if instead the man kills the killer without having hard evidence. This is illegal, and the man gets sent to prison.

Years later, undeniable evidence surfaces that shows that the person the man killed was in fact the murderer of his wife.

Should the man now go free?

-RMJ

[bunny]

Yes he should now be released, same as anyone found guilty of a crime by a court when subsequent evidence comes to light which would have got them off had it been present at the trial.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes he should now be released, same as anyone found guilty of a crime by a court when subsequent evidence comes to light which would have got them off had it been present at the trial.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was my first thought, and I would have no argument with it, but I'm not sure that it's so simple. Finding new evidence doesn't make him any more or less guilty of his crime - it shows that he killed the right man, but he still did so "incorrectly" (without proper evidence).

I could see this being argued either way.

[bunny]

I agree completely - this was my second thought.

I eventually went with the first since it seemed to me we should prefer a legal system that strived for natural justice over one which didnt. I think the "Would he have been condemned if we had this new evidence?" question is a good way to decide if he has been unjustly penalised or not.

Edit: It's hard to evaluate a system like this though since so much of society would probably be different in order for this to be the accepted legal solution.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
but only if the evidence is crystal clear and more or less undeniable.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Years later, undeniable evidence surfaces that shows that the person the man killed was in fact the murderer of his wife.


[/ QUOTE ] Ok-distinction time-does the evidence have to be crystal clear and more or less undeniable at the time at which the revenge takes place?

Pragmatism time-who, when, what where how and why decides that the evidence is crystal clear and more or less undeniable.

The answer in my view, btw, is no, because in no way should he ever be allowed to be the judge in his own case. I thought Locke's treaties on gov't showed this quite clearly, even if the rest was garbage.

[madnak]

The evidence is irrelevant to the man's crime. He didn't have that evidence when he commit the murder. He commit the murder based on speculation, and whether that speculation happened to be accurate is functionally meaningless.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Should the man now go free?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. It depends on whatever arbitrary decision the judicial body comes up with.

EDIT TO ADD: if the person is deemed not a threat to society, then I support his release.

[RocketManJames]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok-distinction time-does the evidence have to be crystal clear and more or less undeniable at the time at which the revenge takes place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what the answer is... I mean, yes, it's my own made up hypothetical, but if we required undeniable evidence at the time of revenge, then I suppose it's a clear case of him being guilty of murder. So, I guess it makes most sense if it was a legal 'gray area' in this society.

-RMJ

[RocketManJames]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is irrelevant to the man's crime. He didn't have that evidence when he commit the murder. He commit the murder based on speculation, and whether that speculation happened to be accurate is functionally meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons I thought about this has to do with movies...

Some guy is trying to save the world or stop some horrible crime or whatever. In doing so, he's doing all sorts of illegal things (hit and run during car chases, escaping from police custody, etc). But, at the end, it's shown that he did the right thing even though he could very well have been speculating. And, in light of this new undeniable evidence, he is now a hero or he's no longer in any legal trouble.

It's not exactly the same, but maybe it's similar. And, of course, that's just a movie.

-RMJ

[guesswest]

As far as the 'word of the law' goes, in this situation he's undeniably guilty and shouldn't be released. But, I think what would actually happen is the law would end up being changed, since it seems intuitively unjust to most people.

And on a minor point, it makes good TV to see hero characters in movies and the like breaking laws left right and center for some noble agenda. But I reckon that in real life, even if they did save the world, they'd still end up getting in a massive amount of trouble for it. I'd like to think they wouldn't, but our society is way too bureaucratic for that. At the very least they'd face prolonged enquiries and incarceration before they were pardoned - they always end up celebrating at a bar a couple hours later on TV!

[madnak]

Action movie starts are usually idiots. It's fantasy. If a real person tried to be an action hero, he would get himself and everyone around him killed. He would also likely end up killing some innocent people himself and look very foolish.

[Rduke55]

Are you criticizing Jack Bauer's actions?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Action movie starts are usually idiots. It's fantasy. If a real person tried to be an action hero, he would get himself and everyone around him killed. He would also likely end up killing some innocent people himself and look very foolish.

[/ QUOTE ] Not Seagal though. If Seagal tried this in real life he would still end up defeating hundreds of armed "villains" without a scratch LOL.

[WordWhiz]

A nearly identical topic begins William Clifford's essay "The Ethics of Belief" (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html). FWIW, I agree with his conclusions, but I invite the readers to read what he has to say and draw their own conclusions as to the soundness of his logic.

[pilliwinks]

Sorry to take everyone off track for a minute, but this all reminds me of the famous Roman judge who sentences a chap to death for murder, and orders his immediate execution.

Shortly afterwards the executioner returns with the condemned man as well as his supposed victim - the man was not murdered after all. Happy ending? No.

The judge orders all three men to be executed. The executioner for failing to obey his orders, the condemned man in accordance with his death sentence, and the supposed victim for causing the death of an innocent man /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Rastadon]

Judge should have ordered himself executed for triple murder.