If I am forced to murder someone will I be convicted?

[pravnik]

@Mangetout

You can’t do that because in this hypothetical, the telephone has never been invented, and in any case, you, the victim, are mute because you accidentally ingested a wasp from your can of Dr Pepper. Now, is it OK to kill the stranger?

Wait…how did I get a can of Dr. Pepper prior to the invention of the phone?

[Mangetout]

@pravnik

Wait…how did I get a can of Dr. Pepper prior to the invention of the phone?

Your child dropped it when he became trapped in the wreckage of the burning car, of course.

[yelimS]

@pravnik

Wait…how did I get a can of Dr. Pepper prior to the invention of the phone?

it came in a time machine, silly! and they didn’t bring a telephone because it would be no good on it’s own.

[Lionne]

But how did the wasp get in tha can of Dr. Pepper?

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Mangetout

I don’t think there can be any justification for killing some celebrity in order to comply with the demands of a person holding your family hostage - if nothing else, you have no idea that he will in fact honour his end of the deal and that you are in fact saving one life at the expense of another.

What, so it’s better to take the chance of having (say) three of the most important people in your world die, vs. one celebrity?

@msmith537

Say you are in some kind of hostage situation and someone gives you a gun with one bullet, holds another gun to your head and demands you kill a hostage?

Um, you have a gun and a bullet. You shoot the “someone” who gave you the gun and then use the ensuing chaos to take control of the situation and contact the authorities.

@msmith537

Of course, in reality, the “force some guy to kill a target” scenario as seen in movies like Nick of Time or Commando is highly improbable. You have no idea of your patsy will freak out and go to the police anyway or simply blow it because they have no idea what they are doing. Especially if its a high profile figure you are after. Plus you’re going to want to kill your patsy anyway which may be hard to do once they are in jail.

That’s what I’m thinking. Why would a seasoned killer enlist an amateur to do a job he could easily do himself? It doesn’t make any sense.

@pravnik

Wait…how did I get a can of Dr. Pepper prior to the invention of the phone?

He didn’t say it hasn’t been invented yet, he said it has never been invented, meaning you’re in the modern day in a parallel universe where the telephone does not exist.

[msmith537]

@fetus

Um, you have a gun and a bullet. You shoot the “someone” who gave you the gun and then use the ensuing chaos to take control of the situation and contact the authorities.

Picking apart the scenario is not answering the question. If you prefer, use the garbage compactor scenario where you have no chance of turning the tables on the terrorist.

[Mangetout]

@fetus

What, so it’s better to take the chance of having (say) three of the most important people in your world die, vs. one celebrity?

That’s not what I’m saying at all. For one thing, I don’t think such a choice could be properly and rationally weighed anyway, BUT… in any case, the notion is illusory that your choice consists of:

1. kill the stranger
2. allow your loved one to be killed

Anyone who presents you with the supposed choice of killing a stranger or allowing the death of your loved one, does not, by definition, have sufficient moral integrity to even consider that they would make good on the deal, so the choice in fact consists of:

a) kill the stranger
b) don’t kill the stranger

[villa]

Duress does exist as an excuse, though not as a justification. You can avoid a sentence based on this, certainly for lower crimes, though I cannot remember if murder is included (I think it varies based on country).

If I remember the elements right, they are:
[ul]
[li]compelled by a human to commit a crime[/li][li]no safe avenue of escape[/li][li]threat of serious imminent harm to defendant or other[/li][li]crime is of a lesser magnitude than the one threatened[/li][li]threat is one sufficient to convince a reasonable person of imminent death or serious bodily harm[/li][/ul]

If someone has your twin children, and says they will kill them if you do not kill one person, in some jurisdictions, I believe, if all the other elements are met, you will get off. I don’t think it works if it is one life for one life.

My criminal law books are at home. If I get out of work at a reasonable time I will take a look.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@msmith537

Picking apart the scenario is not answering the question. If you prefer, use the garbage compactor scenario where you have no chance of turning the tables on the terrorist.

Well, OK. As I see it, there are several different possible outcomes here (leaving out a successful disarming attempt, etc., as you wish).

1. You don’t press the button. Mr. Gun kills you and Mr. Compactor.
2. You don’t press the button. Mr. Gun kills you and, horrified at what he’s done, spares Mr. Compactor.
3. You don’t press the button. Mr. Gun loses his nerve and flees the scene without killing anyone.
4. You do press the button. Mr. Compactor dies and Mr. Gun doesn’t kill you.
5. You do press the button. Mr. Compactor dies and Mr. Gun does kill you.

Seems to me like the most likely scenario is either #1 or #5. #1 is nearly a certainty if you don’t press the button and the guy’s as wacked out as he seems, and #5 is pretty likely if he was willing to kill both of you in the first place–what, he’s going to leave you to squeal to the cops, knowing that you’ll get off light by ratting him out? That said, the moral ramifications of each are as follows:

1. You don’t kill anyone. Two die.
2. You don’t kill anyone. One dies.
3. You don’t kill anyone. Nobody dies.
4. You kill someone. One dies.
5. You kill someone. Two die.

If you go for #4 or #5–ie, press the button–it’s guaranteed that you will have been the direct cause of someone’s death, and likely the indirect cause of your own. If you go for #1, #2, or #3–ie, refuse to press the button–at least one person will probably die, but it won’t be on your hands and there’s some possibility, slim though it may be, that life will be spared to some degree.

There’s moral ambiguity in nearly every situation, but for me, personally, I think the choice is morally clear: don’t press the button.

[Peter_Morris]

@msmith537

Of course, in reality, the “force some guy to kill a target” scenario as seen in movies like Nick of Time or Commando is highly improbable. … Especially if its a high profile figure you are after. Plus you’re going to want to kill your patsy anyway which may be hard to do once they are in jail.

In any event, it’s an unneccessarily complex plan to perform a relatively simple job.

Okay, lets make it more plausible. Lets say that the Bad Guys want to kill The President when he appears at a certain place. So, they target a member of staff at that place. They kidnap her daughter, and order her to switch off an alarm system at a crucial moment. This allows the professional bad guys to bypass security.

Now, is she a victim, or an accomplice?

[Resistance_is_Character-Formin]

If you’re in the military, you could get a medal.