Ends justifying the means

Zombie_Babies · Nov 6, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
Well, the thing is, she was. She was convicted of manslaughter, not 1st degree murder, and the suspended sentence is within the jurisdiction's guidelines. Its rare, but not unheard of. There's all kinds of room for sentencing in manslaughter cases.

Consider Donté Stallworth, the Cleveland Browns player who got a sentence of 30 days in jail & 2 years house arrest, 8 years probation and a lifetime ban on driving (reviewable and alterable in 5 years) & 1000 hours community service for intoxication manslaughter. He got it not just throu status & wealth- it was his first offense of any kind, he was genuinely, immediately and publicly remorseful, and had a good overall reputation in the community. Even the decedent's family was satisfied with the sentence.

She was punished, yes, but not what I'd call according to her deed. She shot a man in the head when she could have simply left the home with her child and looked for help.

The Stallworth thing is a little different, too. He was negligent and he had an accident. She was deliberate and meant to kill her husband. That looks like two totally different scenarios to me. Also, Mr Stallworth happened to pay the family of the deceased a large sum of money. He did so because I believe - as you do - that he was genuinely sorry. I don't think it hurt him when it came to the courts, though.

Janx · Nov 6, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
She was punished, yes, but not what I'd call according to her deed. She shot a man in the head when she could have simply left the home with her child and looked for help.

I think the woman with the bad husband is one of those "agree to disagree" examples. The conversation has looped.

I think it is agreeable that this example isn't sufficient proof of a terrible means with a justified end, given there is debate over it.

So, are there any other candidate examples?

I think Umbran's test was also a good idea, to prove that some Means do justify the End.

Given that a statement of "the Ends Never Justify the Means" would next to useless logically or philosophically in that any and all Means would not be justified to any and all Ends. That would pretty much mean that doing or not doing anything would not be suitable for any objective.

Therefore, identifying what bounds a Mean to justify an End might be helpful. BG was asking for Terrible Means, but just how Terrible does it have to be?

Zombie_Babies · Nov 6, 2013

Janx said:
I think the woman with the bad husband is one of those "agree to disagree" examples. The conversation has looped.

I think it is agreeable that this example isn't sufficient proof of a terrible means with a justified end, given there is debate over it.

Why you incredibly reasonable jerk!

Yeah, I'm with ya. We're actually all pretty close on this one for the most part, too. And, again, I do agree the world is a better place for what she did ... even though it was a murder.

So, are there any other candidate examples?

I mentioned one but it was during the more heated portion of the earlier discussion. I brought up the 19th century English body snatchers. Stealing corpses and desecrating them is typically seen as something pretty awful. Thing is, our anatomical knowledge and even surgery techniques likely would have taken much longer to develop had they not done it.

Bedrockgames · Nov 6, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
I have one issue with this: At the time of the murder her husband was asleep. She wasn't locked in the home and she had access to her child. All she had to do was leave. She didn't. She chose to murder a man in his sleep instead.

Because that was the safest time to kill him. What should she do, wait for him to be on his feet and alert so it can be a fair fight? Had she attacked him while he was awake he might have overpowered her, killed her and continued to pose a threat to the daughter. I am not arguing that her actions were ideal, just that they seem justified to me given what she believed he was going to do. I think a woman, in that situation, trying to protect her daughter, shouldn't spend time in jail. In a perfect world she would have felt safe enough to go to the authorities. But i can definitely see how she didn't want to risk that. If the priority was protecting her child from this man, who it seems did pose a very real threat, then I can't really fault her for acting how i expect my own mother, my sisters, or wife would act in that position.

this man was seriously disturbed. Leaving would have ony given temporary safety to her and her daughter. He could even use that to accuse the wife of abducting he daughter, possibly gained custody. Even more frightening, he could have tracked her down and murdered her. I just dont think this scenario is as simple or easy as you are painting it.

Zombie_Babies · Nov 6, 2013

Bedrockgames said:
Because that was the safest time to kill him. What should she do, wait for him to be on his feet and alert so it can be a fair fight? Had she attacked him while he was awake he might have overpowered her, killed her and continued to pose a threat to the daughter. I am not arguing that her actions were ideal, just that they seem justified to me given what she believed he was going to do. I think a woman, in that situation, trying to protect her daughter, shouldn't spend time in jail. In a perfect world she would have felt safe enough to go to the authorities. But i can definitely see how she didn't want to risk that. If the priority was protecting her child from this man, who it seems did pose a very real threat, then I can't really fault her for acting how i expect my own mother, my sisters, or wife would act in that position.

this man was seriously disturbed. Leaving would have ony given temporary safety to her and her daughter. He could even use that to accuse the wife of abducting he daughter, possibly gained custody. Even more frightening, he could have tracked her down and murdered her. I just dont think this scenario is as simple or easy as you are painting it.

If it was the safest time to attack him it was also the safest time to leave.

And yeah, if she left he could have said she kidnapped the kid ... and then she could have told her story ... and then the cops could have gotten a warrant ... and then they could have found kiddie porn ... and then nuclear material ... I think you see where this would go. Her first response was what should have been her last resort. That's the problem. She skipped steps 1-9 and went straight to 'cap dat foo'.

Kramodlog · Nov 6, 2013

Bedrockgames said:
Because that was the safest time to kill him. What should she do, wait for him to be on his feet and alert so it can be a fair fight? Had she attacked him while he was awake he might have overpowered her, killed her and continued to pose a threat to the daughter. I am not arguing that her actions were ideal, just that they seem justified to me given what she believed he was going to do. I think a woman, in that situation, trying to protect her daughter, shouldn't spend time in jail. In a perfect world she would have felt safe enough to go to the authorities. But i can definitely see how she didn't want to risk that. If the priority was protecting her child from this man, who it seems did pose a very real threat, then I can't really fault her for acting how i expect my own mother, my sisters, or wife would act in that position.

this man was seriously disturbed. Leaving would have ony given temporary safety to her and her daughter. He could even use that to accuse the wife of abducting he daughter, possibly gained custody. Even more frightening, he could have tracked her down and murdered her. I just dont think this scenario is as simple or easy as you are painting it.

Just invoking wanting to protect someone doesn't mean you get to be above the law. She really should have called the police. Saying you do not trust cops or they make mistakes doesn't mean you get to take the law into your own hands.

If she can claimed battered wife symdrome, and I think she did, that could get her off, but the danger was not imminent and she did have other options (call the cops).

Bedrockgames · Nov 6, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
If it was the safest time to attack him it was also the safest time to leave.

And yeah, if she left he could have said she kidnapped the kid ... and then she could have told her story ... and then the cops could have gotten a warrant ... and then they could have found kiddie porn ... and then nuclear material ... I think you see where this would go. Her first response was what should have been her last resort. That's the problem. She skipped steps 1-9 and went straight to 'cap dat foo'.

Again, I think the leaving introduced a number of complications and we are dealing with a woman who had been abused by the man. So I just don't think she had the luxury of thinking through this from our safe vantage point. Also, you are assuming the best case scenario. If she left and went to the cops, it was not a certainty the police would get a warrant and not a certainty that they would find the child porn (he could have gotten rid of it for example----same with the bomb material). The bottom line is, if she wanted to ensure the safety of her daughter from this man, the most effective thing to do was kill him in his sleep. And that is what she did. Now she could have gone to cops, she could have tried to leave, and I think those are preferable options, but I understand why she might not have, and I think it is unjust to imprison her when she was trying to stop an abusive man who expressed interest in pedophilia and was amassing bomb material. The problem with your calculation is had she made this her last resort, she might not have had the chance to employ it. He could have killed her or molested the daughter in the interim.

Bedrockgames · Nov 6, 2013

goldomark said:
Just invoking wanting to protect someone doesn't mean you get to be above the law. She really should have called the police. Saying you do not trust cops or they make mistakes doesn't mean you get to take the law into your own hands.

If she can claimed battered wife symdrome, and I think she did, that could get her off, but the danger was not imminent and she did have other options (call the cops).

Earlier I said this didn't meet the legal definition of self defense, which is why she was convicted. But judges and prosecutors do have discretion. In this case, I think killing him to protect her daughter, was an understandable action and she shouldn't serve time for it. I don't think it was the best way to handle it, but I do think ultimately she was trying to protect her daughter from a man who would have molested her and who probably was going to go on to commit an act of terrorism. When you add that she was also abused by the husband, I think putting her in jail would have been a miscarriage of justice. Should she have gone to the police first? Probably, but I can understand why she didn't, and I think the circumstances she was living in, probably make anyone think twice about taking their chances going through legal channels.

Kramodlog · Nov 6, 2013

Bedrockgames said:
Earlier I said this didn't meet the legal definition of self defense, which is why she was convicted. But judges and prosecutors do have discretion. In this case, I think killing him to protect her daughter, was an understandable action and she shouldn't serve time for it. I don't think it was the best way to handle it, but I do think ultimately she was trying to protect her daughter from a man who would have molested her and who probably was going to go on to commit an act of terrorism. When you add that she was also abused by the husband, I think putting her in jail would have been a miscarriage of justice. Should she have gone to the police first? Probably, but I can understand why she didn't, and I think the circumstances she was living in, probably make anyone think twice about taking their chances going through legal channels.

I disagree here. You put forth a standard that justify people taking the law into their own hands. It really should be a question of last resort, not the default solution after suicide.

Bedrockgames · Nov 6, 2013

goldomark said:
I disagree here. You put forth a standard that justify people taking the law into their own hands. It really should be a question of last resort, not the default solution after suicide.

Okay. It is your right to disagree, but my right to maintain my opinion. I think people have a right to protect themselves and their children. In this case, I believe that is what she was doing. I do not see this as vigilantism, I see it as taking steps to stop someone who posed a very real danger to the daughter. She wasn't trying to administer justice herself, she was trying to keep her daughter safe. And I think her actions are understandable and not deserving of time in jail. It was correct for her to be tried, but I think sending her to jail would not have been the best outcome here. Had she gone to the police, there was still the possibility he would have molested the daughter (either before the police had a chance to do anything, or if the police could find no reason to arrest him). This action entirely eliminated that possibility. The way I see it, she took that action knowing she might do time, because she thought it protected her daughter more than the alternatives. I do not want to send her to jail for that.

Ends justifying the means

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Janx

Hero

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Bedrockgames

Legend

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Bedrockgames

Legend

Bedrockgames

Legend

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Bedrockgames

Legend

Similar Threads