Your Honor, May I Pro...secute?

[spiral]

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!

I loved that movie. Everytime I watched it, I was inspired to become a lawyer. Then the inspiration would go away.

[violette829]

I loved that movie. Everytime I watched it, I was inspired to become a lawyer. Then the inspiration would go away.

As soon as you saw Viken Berjikian on TV!

[gevo]

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.

In the first case there is absolutely nothing wrong with the decision of the driver. Not that the hobo's life is less important or any less "good" than the children's life, but that in the case of no other possible action, to take one life is more right than to take two lives. (I hesitate to say "right or wrong" so i will say more right, meaning that it is not "as wrong" as would be the other choice) I believ that in this case you cannot judge a person's value as in "the chidren are more valuable than the hobo" infact if it were me as the trolly operator i would not think twice even if in place of the hobo was Bill Gates or the president (for whatever reason they were there, work with me!)

In the second case, that is a long debated form of arguement, ofcourse by killing one person the doctor saves five, yet he is actively killing that person. This as we heard above goes to the idea of "Ends justify the means", which CAN possibly be true someitmes, however, in following this 'theory' we can fall into much trouble and eventually human life would be more worthless than it is, as in, one would not "have" to think it over that if he can kill this person and from his organs save five others, than it is ok, than this person 'should' die. On the bigger scale then, in order to follow this way of thinking, one must also take on the responsibility to judge who is to die, in order for more to live, or even for more to live BETTER, because that is eventually the idea of this "theory".... As we can see, obviously its completely flawed, we not to judge who is to live and who is to die out of our own free will, unless one is in the unfortunate situation of the first scenerio with the hobo. In the second scenerio, it seems that passivity has prevailed for the most part in the human character throughout history, but there have been very controversial issues with those who ahve decided to kill in order to save.

Note: Please do not go into comparing this issue with the topic of war, war is always for a selfish reason, though thats not ONLY the outcome of it in most cases, it sure is the basis for every war in history, and to come. So, this is not way to justify, or falsify the cruel reality of war. You can not say "going to war is like this hypothetical, where we do kill people, but it is for a nation to live, or for people to be free etc..." nor can you say "Going to war is wrong, becuase since it is wrong to actively persue the death of a person, or of persons, in order for more than the amount killed ot be saved, or live better, then you cannot go to war where you kill persons to save more persons. This is again because the reasoning of war is almost never to save more lives, nor is it on a personel level... it is a greedy situation where one "wants" more, or in the event of cause-and-affect MUST retaliate.. or such reasons which cannot be conclusive for the second hypothetical situation above.

Anyone see "I-Robot"???? THis was essentially the problem with the three laws set into motion, and so precisely inputedinto the robot's systems. In order to save more lives, the robots found it correct to control the humans, if need be kil them, beat them.. etc.. but the main goal and i guess if your nuts you can call it "good", the robots were going to make the world a better place to live.. so, by hurting a few, they would make better the lives and save the lives of many many more.. however, that obviously does not hold.

[gevo]

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.

Your right it would not exactly be murder, but he very well can be charged with mansluaghter. A rather sad reality is also that, even though one does not feel/see another possible choice during the incident, yet in the courtroom one can draw a specific way out of it... then that person may very well be charged with un-intentional murder, which is not manslaughter, yet has a lighter sound to it.

[Anonymouse]

In the first case there is absolutely nothing wrong with the decision of the driver. Not that the hobo's life is less important or any less "good" than the children's life, but that in the case of no other possible action, to take one life is more right than to take two lives. (I hesitate to say "right or wrong" so i will say more right, meaning that it is not "as wrong" as would be the other choice) I believ that in this case you cannot judge a person's value as in "the chidren are more valuable than the hobo" infact if it were me as the trolly operator i would not think twice even if in place of the hobo was Bill Gates or the president (for whatever reason they were there, work with me!)

In the second case, that is a long debated form of arguement, ofcourse by killing one person the doctor saves five, yet he is actively killing that person. This as we heard above goes to the idea of "Ends justify the means", which CAN possibly be true someitmes, however, in following this 'theory' we can fall into much trouble and eventually human life would be more worthless than it is, as in, one would not "have" to think it over that if he can kill this person and from his organs save five others, than it is ok, than this person 'should' die. On the bigger scale then, in order to follow this way of thinking, one must also take on the responsibility to judge who is to die, in order for more to live, or even for more to live BETTER, because that is eventually the idea of this "theory".... As we can see, obviously its completely flawed, we not to judge who is to live and who is to die out of our own free will, unless one is in the unfortunate situation of the first scenerio with the hobo. In the second scenerio, it seems that passivity has prevailed for the most part in the human character throughout history, but there have been very controversial issues with those who ahve decided to kill in order to save.

Note: Please do not go into comparing this issue with the topic of war, war is always for a selfish reason, though thats not ONLY the outcome of it in most cases, it sure is the basis for every war in history, and to come. So, this is not way to justify, or falsify the cruel reality of war. You can not say "going to war is like this hypothetical, where we do kill people, but it is for a nation to live, or for people to be free etc..." nor can you say "Going to war is wrong, becuase since it is wrong to actively persue the death of a person, or of persons, in order for more than the amount killed ot be saved, or live better, then you cannot go to war where you kill persons to save more persons. This is again because the reasoning of war is almost never to save more lives, nor is it on a personel level... it is a greedy situation where one "wants" more, or in the event of cause-and-affect MUST retaliate.. or such reasons which cannot be conclusive for the second hypothetical situation above.

Part of why I like natural rights theory and ethics is because it propounds the inviolable rights of life, liberty, and property of all individuals. Whether it is an act of war, or someone killing one life to supposedly save five, the situation does not change, because it is a violation of ones life, liberty and property, and ones body is the most fundamental property to ones existence, therefore, it is wrong. Any aggression ( other than self-defense ) that results in the violation of another person liberty, is therefore wrong. There is nothing inconsistent with this.

[thedebutante]

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!

Yeah, what you're talking about is basically contributory negligence on the part of the person crossing the street and the driver may be charged with manslaughter, but not murder unless it was intentional.

Loseyourname,
Technically speaking, the driver willfully killed the hobo.

CK,
Based on what you said, you have too much trust in the court system because if anything, common sense is the last thing I would appeal to when talking about these legal issues. I'm sure you're familiar with lots of nonsensical verdicts and the incredible amount of cases that end up in appellate courts and get their judgements reversed (even if only becuase correct legal procedure was not followed or the judge gave the jury misleading information).

Do you guys really think it's this simple? Anyway, it's really cool to get your opinions on this. And Violette, I think you came closest to what I was thinking when showing emotion in your response by using capital letters.

[thedebutante]

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.

K, well, I believe in skills, not necessarily the right state of mind. But that's a personal opinion and in no way an argument.

[gevo]

Part of why I like natural rights theory and ethics is because it propounds the inviolable rights of life, liberty, and property of all individuals. Whether it is an act of war, or someone killing one life to supposedly save five, the situation does not change, because it is a violation of ones life, liberty and property, and ones body is the most fundamental property to ones existence, therefore, it is wrong. Any aggression ( other than self-defense ) that results in the violation of another person liberty, is therefore wrong. There is nothing inconsistent with this.

But you said nothing of the situation concerning the hobo, i do agree with what you have tos say above, though what would you do as the trolly driver? you have NO OTHER CHOICE, this is a crucial part to this. would you find it fair to be charged as a criminal if you had to chose one or the other?

[gevo]

...... I'm sure you're familiar with lots of nonsensical verdicts and the incredibal amount of cases that end up in appellate courts and get their judgements reversed (even if only becuase correct legal procedure was not followed or the judge gave the jury misleading information).

......

like the lady who ordered hot coffe from McDonalds then spilled it on her, and found that it says nowhere on the cup that the contents are hot and then sued the company for millions and won?? I dont think ill ever get over the stupidty of the court on this one!! the jury must have hated McDonalds or something.. LOL

[thedebutante]

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 drivers may not be prosecuted for murder, but I'd need lots of proof to believe that they wouldn't be guilty of manslaughter. However, whether or not they'd be prosecuted for this somewhat lesser charge is clearly similar to the question we have at hand.