The language in the OP suggests I am in the US, in which case there is no way I would plead guilty. The punishment would be outrageous, the mere thought is terrifying. It certainly would not be justice.
In the UK or the Netherlands, where I actually live, maybe. Certainly in the Netherlands I do have faith in the justice system, the judges are good and fair, sentences are fitting, prison is not dangerous, human rights are respected, people with mental health problems get help etc. I would at least get justice, if I were to plead guilty.
I still don’t think I would, my guilt will be my punishment and locking me up doesn’t do much good.
The degree that it affects me, I’m going to be biased. No shame in admitting that, so if I feel justified, I would certainly excuse myself.
If I were a juror, I wouldn’t automatically vote to convict. The list of things you gave was pretty horrible, and any one of those things would merit a second consideration. All of those things together? The guy got what he deserved.
Ahh, you’d be interested in fee schedule ‘B’ then.
You did read the “irresistible impulse” entry, right? Also known as the “policeman at the elbow test”? You said in your fact pattern that I “snapped”. I may have gone into the alley with the intent of negotiation, but I can imagine that I could lose my sense of reason in that situation long enough to brain my antagonist.
Now that Lex Luthor is dead, what good would it do anyone for me to go to prison? Least of all me. I mean, if I thought prison would make me a better person, then fine. But it won’t.
People literally (literally literally) get away with murder every day. This is not good, because if too many people get away with murder then we’re back to blood feuds and vigilante justice and self defense militias and suchlike. But one dude getting away with one murder, like me or OJ doesn’t bring down the system.
OK, now you’ve talked me into the one scenario where I’d plead guilty. If my crime was famous, on all the tabloids and cable news 24 hours a day, and I honestly thought that my getting away with murder would cause lots of people to actually lose faith in the rule of law and encourage nuts like Bruce Wayne to take the law into their own hands, then for the good of civilization I’d agree to plead guilty to 27th degree manslaughter with an asterisk, or whatever the lowest thing I could get.
If it’s just one more unsolved murder on the back pages of the local newspaper, then no way.
Killing him was doing a good work. The world is a better place for the absence of a man who will rob or frame innocent bystanders to advance his vendetta.
Whoever I killed had a moral obligation and more importantly, a practical necessity, to avoid causing harm and/or excessive annoyance to me and mine. The deceased obviously needed killing or I wouldn’t have done it. I’m a little disturbed that I was careless enough to even be charged, but I’m not pleading to anything on those facts. The State has the burden of proof. Let them meet it if they can.
To me the state does not have the moral authority to punish, they just have the power (abused) to establish rule by fear. So no obligation, that is between you and God, or if you prefer, you and the effects of Karma. I do not believe the state punishment system has done anything but worsen the human condition and cause more hurt and tears then the original crimes by themselves - which in it’s own way (thru karmic exchange) causes the state to creates more crimes against mankind.
As such the only one who can judge a person is God, and God does what God wants for the benefit of God’s children. God may see fit to have the state not find you guilty. Also God has allows a system (in the US) where it is the state’s responsibility to prove you guilty (so you have no reason to declare your guilt, God even included the 5th amendment to the US Constitution) .
To quazi quote the words of Jesus to Pilot ‘You have no authority over me except that which is granted to you from above’.
So the state has no moral right to punish anyone, God will take care of it in God’s own way, and doesn’t need your help by you accepting punishment from another entity in place of what God plans for your correction.
And that is the main point, if God wants to use the state to punish you, God will, if God has other plans you just can’t willy-nilly say to God, I will pay the state penalty instead (unless God gives you that option) - It’s not your choice, so you suffer needlessly by submission to a lesser god (the state) and still have to be corrected by God (eventually). You are the child, God is the parent.
This. Besides, if I have a debt to society, I am more capable of paying that debt by doing society some good if I am not in prison, where I would in fact be an economic burden on society.
Outside a Dostoyevsky novel, probably not. The trouble lies with someone being morally depraved enough to commit the murder, and then being righteous enough to accept punishment.
As to the OP, I think Dostoyevsky got it right. The ethical thing to do would be to accept punishment.
And if punishment by the US justice system isn’t your thing, then you still have to accept some type of responsibility. Paying your debt back to society “in your own way” doesn’t cut it. You have to submit to a principle higher than yourself if you want the punishment to mean anything.
I voted “I refuse to concede the possibility that I could be driven to kill another person” BUT if we assume I were not a pacifist, I would still not vote any of the choices you gave, as there was no “I would plead guilty to the crime I’m accused of, because I am guilty” option.
ETA: I’d certainly try for getting the mitigating circumstances recognized, but I wouldn’t plead “Not guilty” when I actually did exactly what they’re accusing me of.
If I am a bad enough person to kill, I am a bad enough person to try to get away with it. So I probably would not suffer an attack of conscience, and just walk.
How is option 1, “I think such a person has a moral obligation to plead guilty, and I would do so,” not equivalent to your last sentence?
Also, I think all non-quadraplegic, non-vegetative state humans are capable of murder, no matter what their philosophical stand on violence. As Chesterton had Father Brown say, we “have all devils in our heart[s]s.” We evolved from predators and still are, largely. Anybody can be pushed past his limit, because none of us have infinite strength, patience, and wisdom.
Oh the victim HAD been stalking me. I read that entire paragraph following as the most impressive and evil zombie ever. “A zombie has been planting kiddie porn on my computer?”
As for the OP. He doesn’t have to be Hannibal Lecter. If I felt it nessecery to kill him, I’m sure not going to admit to it. Morality is for lesser beings.
I figure I’d feel just as guilty if I was languishing in prison or out free in the world, so I figure it’s the state’s problem to prove me guilty, and if they can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.
I mean, what if you killed the guy and you were never charged? Do you have an obligation to turn yourself in?
For everyone saying they would not submit to the justice system for killing someone, what moral obligation do you think you have once you’ve killed someone?
Saying “if I killed him, then I am immoral anyway” is a cop-out. Assume you are the same moral person that you are now, but you had a moment of weakness and snapped. Now what do you do?
I am incapable of taking the life of another person, possibly even justifiably in self defense, so I had to vote that I couldn’t ever conceivably see myself in that situation. That said, while I would strongly consider the actions of the hypothetical person in the OP to be immoral, I do not believe he has a moral obligation to plead guilty. The purpose of the justice system isn’t to arbitrate morality, it is to arbitrate justice, for the wronged individuals and society as a whole. Of course, in general, I would say that justice is a moral virtue and thus should be supported, but what exactly is the appropriate way to support it. The issue here is this is no longer about just the balance of right and wrong between the victim and the accused, in which case I would assert that regardless of how bad the harrassment is, it does not justify murder, but it now also includes the balance of society and the system as a whole.
So, as I see it, the moral obligation is on two fronts. The first and most obvious is between the hypothetical person in the OP and the victim. There is certainly an injustice there, but how much of one is difficult to say without actually being in that situation. It’s difficult for me to really appreciate what the depth of the injustice is there, even a well-tempered dog, if provoked enough will eventually bite; how much responsibility does each party hold for the result? Fortunately, however, the question in the OP isn’t about the complexity of this issue, so I don’t really need to work too hard to figure that one out.
The other front is the moral obligation that the hypothetical person has to the justice system. As I see it, the obligation is to not interfere with the procedings, not lie to the court, not manipulate it to work in a manner not in accordance with the law. The issue here is, this goes both ways and corruption on the side of the government doesn’t put a moral obligation on the other person to make up for their incompetence. In that sense, it creates another injustice.
Not really sure how this differs from the OP, but in any event, I get on with my life. Whoever pissed me off enough to need killing got what he deserved. Now, what’s for lunch?