A Death Penalty Hypothetical

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Jan 23, 2004
9,758
1,160
190
Caucasiastan
Here's a hypothetical. Say you're on a desert island with 100 people. One guy goes nuts and decides he wants to kill everyone else. He manages to kill a few, but some men manage to restrain him.

Now, what to do with him? The rest of the people could kill him, or they could imprison him. The problem is that would require one guard constantly, which would mean enough less labor that one of the islanders would starve to death each year.

What's the moral choice?
 
Originally posted by William Joyce
Here's a hypothetical. Say you're on a desert island with 100 people. One guy goes nuts and decides he wants to kill everyone else. He manages to kill a few, but some men manage to restrain him.

Now, what to do with him? The rest of the people could kill him, or they could imprison him. The problem is that would require one guard constantly, which would mean enough less labor that one of the islanders would starve to death each year.

What's the moral choice?

Since he is too crazy to be put to good use (via hard labor) I have one word for his fate: Cannibalism. Don't let the bad man go totally to waste. The original murderer will provide a good meal.
 
Originally posted by William Joyce
Here's a hypothetical. Say you're on a desert island with 100 people. One guy goes nuts and decides he wants to kill everyone else. He manages to kill a few, but some men manage to restrain him.

Now, what to do with him? The rest of the people could kill him, or they could imprison him. The problem is that would require one guard constantly, which would mean enough less labor that one of the islanders would starve to death each year.

What's the moral choice?

The moral choice is for everyone to get their heads out of their asses and find a better way through streamlining the process or making use of the person's clothes or whatever to get more food easier.

Only sissies give in and make up their own morality. A true man's man would do the right thing regardless. Funny how everyone would accept loss without valiant effort. -or prayer for that matter.
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
The moral choice is for everyone to get their heads out of their asses and find a better way through streamlining the process or making use of the person's clothes or whatever to get more food easier.

Only sissies give in and make up their own morality. A true man's man would do the right thing regardless. Funny how everyone would accept loss without valiant effort. -or prayer for that matter.

Naturally, after we shared in the meal, we would put the guy's clothes to good use too.
 
Build a raft, tie him to it, and ship him off! I am sure either he will be saved, or the sharks will get hungry!
 
That would be the equivalent of the death penalty. And, I would approve. Kill the bastard. Of course, I set the hypothetical up to favor my position.

Point I was making is that the death penalty is not inherently immoral. It might be under certain conditions, but this is not one of them.
 
Originally posted by William Joyce
That would be the equivalent of the death penalty. And, I would approve. Kill the bastard. Of course, I set the hypothetical up to favor my position.

Point I was making is that the death penalty is not inherently immoral. It might be under certain conditions, but this is not one of them.


I am against the death penalty because it is possible that innocent people can be convicted and executed. In your example you said that he murdered people. Given that as a TRUE FACT, I supported not only his execution but also consumption.
 
I don't think its as much of a moral thing, as it is a better solution than to try to rehabilitate someone who is not likely to return to normal.

If you coddle a criminal, where is the incentive to NOT commit another crime?

Punishing people and making it stick, may help, but for those that are repeat offenders, they may stop what they are doing if they know that they would be executed. Plus, there would be no repeat offenders for the murderers and rapists. You can't commit another heinous crime if you are dead.

A great example is the guy who kidnapped a girl named Dru Sjodin. This is a national story, so you may have heard of it. The guy who is accused, has evidence pointing to him, including her blood in his car and clothing. This guy was a sex offender who was let out because the liberal courts thought that this guy just needed counseling. This young woman was leaving one of her 2 jobs to join her family for Thanksgiving. She was a model student, and had a bright future. This guy took it away.

They finally found her body 2 weeks ago, not far from the accused guy's home.

Here is the story from last December:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/Missing_Student_Sjodin031202-1.html

Everyone I talk to here, thinks that this guy should get the death penalty. He just might, since she was taken from Grand Forks, ND and they found her in Crookston, MN. This is apparently a federal offense, taking her body across state lines, or even if she was alive.

I hope this guy fries.
 
Originally posted by Sir Evil
True - the system has been known to screw up! However child molesters & killers need be put to death! A needle is a little to humane in my opinion! Certainly I am not against the death penalty if the facts are in order!

Yes. If the facts are that he murdered.
 
Methinks the solution for Alfonso Rodriguez, the murderer, is NOT TO LET HIM INTO THE COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE. That way, we don't have to debate whether he should be put to death. Because he doesn't have the chance to kill. But we let him in, and this is the "diversity" he enriches us with.
 
It is quite amazing the amount of crime that blacks and hispanics commit in the state of Minnesota.
 

Forum List

Back
Top