Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Your Honor, May I Pro...secute?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Your Honor, May I Pro...secute?

    I came across something very interesting today and it got me thinking. Now I want to get you thinking. So this one goes out to all of the legal-minded (not really, you’re cool too) forumers out there.

    If you’re lazy like me, you don’t need to read this paragraph:
    (First, I’m going to provide a general, legal definition of murder. A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person, or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person…A person may be found not to have committed murder if he or she was moved to act by a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before there had been a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself. However, a killing with such provocation does not preclude a conviction of, manslaughter or other crime. Source: uslegalforms.com)

    Start reading here:
    Here’s a version of the allegedly famous Trolley Hypothetical. The driver of the Trolley is going straight. He has a lever that he could pull to change the Trolley’s direction onto another set of tracks. So he’s speeding down the tracks and he notices another cart full of children straight ahead of him. He looks to change his tracks, and notices a hobo sleeping on the other set of tracks. In the spur of the moment, the driver pulls the lever and changes tracks, killing the hobo and leaving the children unharmed.
    Would you prosecute the driver? (murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, any criminal charge, it’s all fair game)

    Now let’s look at another hypothetical situation. This one takes place in a hospital in Alaska. There is a storm and all contact with the outside world has been cut off. There are five patients in the hospital that would die within a day if they don’t get various organ transplants. However, if they do get these organs, their chances of survival are certain. The doctor decides to kill an orderly and transplant his organs into these patients. All five of the patients make full recoveries.
    Would you prosecute the doctor? (murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, any criminal charge, it’s all fair game)

    In each situation, one man kills another to save more lives. Arguably, the logic behind these cases is exactly the same and each guy is guilty of murder. Now, if you were a prosecutor, would you prosecute? Or if you were a judge, would you choose to suspend either case? Bottom line, did these two situations elicit different responses from you? And of course, why?

    Note: Please don’t add to or try to change the hypothetical situations. i.e. please don’t assume that the storm could have stopped any second and outside help could have been available or that the trolley could have made enough noise to wake up the hobo. Just take the situations as they are.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    My initial response was, I would prosecute the doctor, and not the driver.

    I thought 'why'.

    Here’s what I come up with.

    In the case of the Trolley driver, he really didn’t have much power to act on, or not act on. He had to go one way or another. And he chose the way which takes less lives. The hobo was there at that time and place, lying in the way of death, as were the children. Both were included, one had to go.

    In the case of the doctor; the only people whose lives were in danger, were the five patients. The orderly was not included. She was a random person dragged into the situation, which makes the doctor responsible for her murder.

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by thedebutante
      Note: Please don’t add to or try to change the hypothetical situations. i.e. please don’t assume that the storm could have stopped any second and outside help could have been available or that the trolley could have made enough noise to wake up the hobo. Just take the situations as they are.
      Ill get to the rest later.. but this request on this place is impossible.. lol.. i allready tried somethign similar.. people are just to DAMN HARD HEADED!!!!!.....some more than others.
      How do you hurt a masochist?
      -By leaving him alone.Forever.

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by spiral
        My initial response was, I would prosecute the doctor, and not the driver.

        I thought 'why'.

        Here’s what I come up with.

        In the case of the Trolley driver, he really didn’t have much power to act on, or not act on. He had to go one way or another. And he chose the way which takes less lives. The hobo was there at that time and place, lying in the way of death, as were the children. Both were included, one had to go.

        In the case of the doctor; the only people whose lives were in danger, were the five patients. The orderly was not included. She was a random person dragged into the situation, which makes the doctor responsible for her murder.
        This is similar to my initial response. But understand that both the driver and the doctor are no doubt guilty of murder. Pretend like this sentence is stipulated, if that makes any sense. As a judge, would you suspend this sentence? Is it a battle between social norms and the legal code? There's no right answer. It's just interesting how two situations with the same logic can get such different responses from us. Most people sympathize with the driver. But at the same time, how criminal was the doctor's action? Should we put him in prison because he's a murderer and might keep doing it? I'm thinking that if those five people died waiting for their transplants, there would at least be a civil case against the doctor suggesting negligence.
        Last edited by thedebutante; 10-28-2004, 01:26 AM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by thedebutante
          This is similar to my initial response. But understand that both the driver and the doctor are no doubt guilty of murder. Pretend like this sentence is stipulated, if that makes any sense. As a judge, would you suspend this sentence? Is it a battle between social norms and the legal code? There's no right answer. It's just interesting how two situations with the same logic can get such different responses from us. Most people sympathize with the driver. But at the same time, how criminal was the doctor's action? Should we put him in prison because he's a murderer and might keep doing it? I'm thinking that if those five people died waiting for their transplants, there would at least be a civil case against the doctor suggesting negligence.
          The driver is not guilty of murder. How should we understand that the driver is no doubt guilty of murder? No judge or jury anywhere in the world would ever find him guilty. The doctor on the other hand, would be guilty of murder. His decision was not one done in the split second with no other options available. What I mean is, the driver was going to kill one of those two options, the children or the hobo, there was no way out. Whereas the doctor chose to bring in the second party, i.e. the orderly, in order to save the others. The decision was completely his, whereas the driver was in a situation where it was necessary to make the decision to save one of the parties. Also, there would never be a civil case against the doctor suggesting negligence. There are hundreds of people on transplant lists all over the world. Its a fact of life that people get sick, organs shut down, they stop functioning, etc. This doesn't mean that any time a doctor is in charge of a sick patient he or she is going to be sued for negligence. However, making the conscious decision to take someones life, when you are not placed in a situation that one or the other will DEFINITELY die (as in the case of the driver, who was in a forced decision situation) is murder.
          Last edited by ckBejug; 10-28-2004, 08:10 AM.
          The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

          Comment

          • #6
            "However, making the conscious decision to take someones life, when you are not placed in a situation that one or the other will DEFINITELY die (as in the case of the driver, who was in a forced decision situation) is murder." I've never heard this special definition of murder in which such a situation is mentioned. The driver's action was murder no doubt. He intentionally took the life of another man. It doesn't matter if he had no other choice. Of course the judge could suspend the case, and that is the main question here.

            Oh, and to address the second part of the statement, it's totally possible to sue the doctor for negligence. Notice how I didn't mention any outcomes of such a situation. I was just listing the extra burdens that might come about. Of course a civil trial would mean absolutely nothing but the doctor's time. But please, let's not diverge from the issue. The Trolley hypothetical is not something I made up. Once again, the driver is guilty and by saying that no jury would ever convict him, you're telling me your opinion that you'd prosecute the doctor and not the driver. So thanks.
            Last edited by thedebutante; 10-28-2004, 08:45 AM.

            Comment

            • #7
              Sorry, Debby, but part of the definition of murder provides that the charged party must be guilty of the willful killing of another human being. It isn't murder if you have no choice. You might get him on manslaughter if he was driving faster than he was trained to or was safe under those conditions, but you haven't provided enough information to make that decision.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by thedebutante
                Oh, and to address the second part of the statement, it's totally possible to sue the doctor for negligence. Notice how I didn't mention any outcomes of such a situation.
                Please, I could sue you for criminal negligence if I had eighty bucks to cover the court fee. That doesn't mean any lawyer in his right mind would actually bring a suit against a doctor in such a situation.

                Comment

                • #9
                  If you're asking about murder, then yes, they both are guilty of that. However, the whole point of having a jury trial is to look at each situation and each individual diffently to examine whether or not the person deserves punishment, and if so, how severe.

                  When a pedestrian crosses a street without using the crosswalk, placing himself in danger, I don't believe that if someone runs him over, he/she should be sent to prison for murder. Yes, what they did was sad, but was it wrong? I mean, if it's a busy street and people are doing 40-50 mph, they are under the impression that pedestrians are following the rules of the street. Of course other factors come into play, like how fast was the guy driving, if the person was handicapped and couldn't make it to a crosswalk, if the driver was under the influence..bla bla bla...But, I don't believe that the driver should be totally to blame for this. The same goes for the driver of the train. The hobo was not supposed to be there. He put himself in harm's way and therefore, paid the price. AWW how sad. Poor hobo...

                  As far as the doctor, YES I BELIEVE HE DESERVES TO DIE AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!

                  Sorry guys, I was watching "A Time To Kill" the other day!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by thedebutante
                    "However, making the conscious decision to take someones life, when you are not placed in a situation that one or the other will DEFINITELY die (as in the case of the driver, who was in a forced decision situation) is murder." I've never heard this special definition of murder in which such a situation is mentioned. The driver's action was murder no doubt. He intentionally took the life of another man. It doesn't matter if he had no other choice. Of course the judge could suspend the case, and that is the main question here.

                    Oh, and to address the second part of the statement, it's totally possible to sue the doctor for negligence. Notice how I didn't mention any outcomes of such a situation. I was just listing the extra burdens that might come about. Of course a civil trial would mean absolutely nothing but the doctor's time. But please, let's not diverge from the issue. The Trolley hypothetical is not something I made up. Once again, the driver is guilty and by saying that no jury would ever convict him, you're telling me your opinion that you'd prosecute the doctor and not the driver. So thanks.
                    Train wrecks happen all the time and when things happen such as children running on the tracks and teverything is electronic and drivers can do nothing but stare in horror as they run over the child, they are not prosecuted for murder. There is no 'special' consideration for murder, as you put it. As you well know, law is a set of guidelines and prosecution occurs within those guidelines but there are no addendums which add, oh except if the death occurs under dire and unchangable circumstances. That is why we have a brain and common sense. To interpret every situation as it should be.

                    You're right, I would prosecute the doctor if he murdered the orderly and not the driver. Common sense would dictate as much.
                    The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                    Working...
                    X