You're a prisoner, about to be taken to the death chamber. Morally ok to fight back?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Hypothetical situation :

You’re a prisoner on death row in the U.S., and all of your appeals have been exhausted. You know mentally that you did not commit the crime, but that lying or mistaken eyewitnesses and/or prosecutorial misconduct has put you where you are.

Someone has smuggled you a shiv, and you are an expert combatant. You believe there is a tiny chance you will be able to kill the guards coming for you and fight your way to escaping the prison.

In your opinion, is taking this action moral? The people coming for you are going to kill you in an act of state sanctioned murder. You know you are about to be murdered as you did not commit the crime. They may be just doing a job, but no one is forced to participate in executions in America. Even if their employer ordered them to be there, they always had the option of quitting.

You aren’t planning on stabbing the guards to death out of spite, you believe that fatal wounds will prevent them from calling for help, giving you more time to escape.

I’m aware that death rows are probably built to be as escape proof as possible, for this very reason, but in this hypothetical, someone on the inside is helping you, so there is a tiny but plausible chance of avoiding your death.

By your personal code of morals, would you find it a more correct choice to allow the guards to murder you or to kill them in an attempt to escape?

Alternate versions of this story are :

     a.  you are guilty of the murder
     b.  you know there is no chance of escape, you just want to kill the guards out of spite
     c.  you are guilty but not of the murder.  (I've read of multiple cases where two men committed a crime, such as a robbery or kidnapping, and the men did not intend to murder the victim when they planned the crime.  One of the men pulled the trigger and committed the murder, and there is no physical evidence that definitively says which of the men did it.  One of the men cut a deal, and agreed to testify against the other in exchange for a reduced sentence.  As near as I can tell, common sense tells us that there is only a 50% chance that the man sent to death row actually committed the murder, but juries don't see it that way, despite the jury instructions)
2

What do you think? Let’s see your responses.

3

None of the details matter. Self defense is the ultimate individual right. If people are coming to harm you, by execution or otherwise, it is not immoral to resist.

As a practical matter, it is also a futile gesture. Prisons have existed a long time, and death row teams are likely well trained in how to overcome a resisting prisoner. They’d likely require you to submit to restraints before they even entered the cell. If you resisted, they’d use pepper spray or something else, then send in an extraction team with gas masks and other appropriate equipment.

4

I’m ambivalent.

Viewed from a distance, the math seems clear. Suppose there’s a 5% chance of escape, saving my life. Yet I will have to stab, say, 4 guards to death to do it. The math says that the expected value of the action is 3.95 lives lost. Less if I don’t think the chance of getting 4 guards before being subdued is 100%

But viewed from the other angle, I try to mentally project myself into the mind of that prisoner. I feel the incredible anger as the court system railroaded me. I think of all the horrible things other guards would have done over the many years, treating me like filth for a crime I didn’t commit. Viewed that way, it’s not even a question. If I had the physical means to kill the guards (aka a moment not shackled and a weapon), and there was nothing to lose (on the way to the death chamber anyway), I’d kill every single one of them I could. They’re participating in a murder, and if they somehow believe the state is infallible in deciding who to kill, that a “court” is in fact fair and impartial, then they are too stupid to live.

5

In this hypothetical, someone is helping you by smuggling a weapon, unlocking doors, etc. There’s a chance, somehow, or at least you believe that a chance exists. (the exact details don’t matter, other than that you have a credible reason to believe it isn’t futile)

6

If you do decide to shank the guards, wait until after your last meal. Otherwise the service is going to be terrible.

7

Would not resisting at all be considered suicide?

8

What if the only way to escape was to go back in time and stab all the guards when they were adorable innocent children?

9

+1 for the dark humor.

10

WWJD? Rather, WDJD?

11

This…

And this…

Are incompatible modes of thought. Sorry, you care quite a bit about this, and that’s OK. Just don’t try to fool yourself or others that you’re ambivalent about it…

To the question in the OP, yeah, I’d be stabbing me some guards, but only if taking one hostage wasn’t an option. Because in the fight, I’d probably have my arms and legs broken if I was destined to lose (like if they were many, and large, and I am alone, and small, which is actually true…), and that’s unpleasant, so I’d find the least painful way (for me) to get it done.

12

No… Because if I actually kill someone, I’ve just committed the very crime I’m arguing I am not guilty of. I’d have just taken an innocent life.

The action doesn’t make the world a better place. It introduces more pain and sorrow into the overall scales of morality.

(And, since it can’t possibly succeed – this ain’t a western movie, and I ain’t James Coburn – it’s morally absurd!)

13

How did that work out for him?

Stranger

14

I wouldn’t kill some poor sod doing his job, unless I was incarcerated in some sort of repressive dictatorship or something, which would make the guards assholes.

But in any case, if I don’t think I deserve it, I’m not going gently into that good night, no way. I’d kick and scream and be a horrible bother.

15

I tend to figure that, all things being equal, the most innocent person in a conflict-to-the-death is the one that ought to survive. If I really did nothing morally culpable to land myself in this prison, then the person who’s participated in state-sponsored killing is the guiltier party, so I get to live over them. It doesn’t matter how many of them there are: we each only get one life, so the equation is always performed on a my-life-against-one-other-life basis.

I think a more interesting version would have you as the prisoner of a tyrannical regime that’s executing you for political resistance. If you were in that situation, would you feel okay breaking out–even if the guards you killed were True Believers in the regime’s ideology? I suspect many people would be all right with breaking out in that scenario, but not in the OP’s scenario, which makes me wonder what moral difference they’d see.

As for folks talking about how hard it is to break out: c’mon, don’t fight the hypothetical!

16

What’s so special about my life that several people have to die, just so I have a tiny chance of getting out of the prison and an equally tiny chance of ever proving my innocence? I don’t believe it would be morally right for me to kill these guys.

For people saying “maybe they’re assholes, maybe they’re part of the system, they volunteered for this…”, suppose there’s an inmate between you and the exit and he, too, has to die in order for you to get out? What if he’s there for embezzlement? Is it okay to kill him to secure your shot at freedom? Not for me, thanks.

17

As I said, the calculus is done one by one. A guard, by being there, has decided it’s okay to participate in a system that results in my death. Guiltier than me, and I can shank. Another inmate has made no such decision, so no shankitude.

18

The first three days were tough but he got away in the end.

19

How far do you extend that? Would you kill other prisoners also? Would you kill the priest who was there praying for you? If there were newspaper reporters on the scene, would you kill them?

I’m just wondering how many people you can justify killing on your behalf by proclaiming you’re the wronged party.

20

Well, in the real world that would be a consideration. But, okay, it’s the Old West, and the hanging party are a sheriff, a deputy, two unarmed loungers, the priest, and (just because, y’know) an old Indian in a blanket.

Assumption: the sheriff and deputy are good guys. The judge who convicted me was a good guy. The jury did their best. It was that lying pole-cat, Snakelips D’Poison who gave perjured testimony. And he’s forty miles away.

I could yank the pistol from the deputy’s holster, shoot the sheriff, hold everyone else at bay, grab a cayuse, and skedaddle. But, once more: I’d be guilty of the very crime I’m claiming to be innocent of! The deputy isn’t responsible. It simply isn’t his fault, and he doesn’t deserve to die (or even to suffer from a non-lethal gunshot.) It’s morally wrong.

If it’s an old Tom Mix western and I can do it with nothing more than fisticuffs? Okay, now you’re on. Yes, I can shove 'em into a horse-trough or lasso 'em, and, after I’ve ridden a way, I leave the horse where it will be found. (I’m no hoss thief, neither!)