Was V's act evil? (Probable spoilers!)

[jeffh]

The link appears broken. Is there another place to read it?

It works fine for me.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Well in some states in the United States, isn't there also a consideration of "reckelss disregard for human life," which would qualify an act as murder?

Yes. Reckless disregard comes into play where there is no intent to kill, but the act is so obviously dangerous to human life that proceeding anyway is equivalent to intending to kill.

The classic example is someone who plants a bomb to destroy a building, then leaves it to explode at some later time. He doesn't know if anyone will be around when it goes off, and he doesn't care. Even though he has no specific intent to kill anyone, the law says that his reckless disregard for possible human victims counts just the same.

In such a case, i could imagine a jury determining that pushing down the woman would qualify as "reckless disregard"

No, not really. One has to be in an appropriate mental condition to be aware of the danger to human life, and callously disregard it. The panicked victim trying to escape her attacker isn't in such a mental state, so "reckless disregard" wouldn't apply.

Also, if you're pushing her down in order to commit murder of someone else, woudln't the felony murder rule apply?

You may be thinking of "transferred intent." But that doesn't really apply, either. What you're describing would just be murder in its own right.

 

[Krensky]

If you have to push someone down a stairs to escape, there's no "maybe". It doesn't matter if accept or expect beforehand that the person may die as a result of your action, or don't consider that outcome - it's not murder.

I am very glad I am not living in England or anywhere else where common law applies then, since I consider a law that makes me in some situations face either a murder charge or death plain evil.

I general, in the US, you are right (actual answer depends on the details and jurisdiction. Murder, as a charge, requires intent to kill, malice aforethought or not. If malice is present, it's a worse crime. Unlawful killing without intent is manslaughter, with a number of variations depending on the details and jurisdiction.

Someone fleeing in a panic from mortal danger (assuming they're not fleeing a crime scene) knocking someone over who then dies could be charged as manslaughter, depending on the specific circumstance. Most likely, from the example given, it sounds like the death would be ruled an accident and no charges would be filed.

And frankly, I've always found the fiddly, nitpicking, bureaucratic precision of civil-law a far bigger turn off then common law's happy relation with natural law and morality and assumption that if you commit a crime you should admit it and ask for mercy.

 

[orsal]

Originally Posted by Krensky
Two individuals is a meaningful sample of either an entire species or an entire family?

According to some people in key positions, holding degrees from very respected universities, yes a small subset is a valid sample.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who believe that. But I can assure you, they aren't the ones who have ever taken a first course in statistics.

As someone who teaches (among other things) basics stats, let me explain: the way statisticians measure the strength of an inference is to say: what range of possibilities would make it plausible that the result actually observed happened by chance?

If only 10% of of family members are [fill in the blank], the probability that the only two observed would show it, would be 1%. That's unlikely, so you can say with confidence that more than 10% of the family members are [fill in the blank].

But what if 30% of family members were [fill in the blank]? Then the probability that a sample of two were both [fill in the blank] would be up to 9%. That's usually not considered statistically significant. So statisticians would allow that the actual percentage might be as low as 30%.

Traditionally, the most commonly used significance level is 5%. That means you allow any possibility which makes the probabiity calculated above at least 5%. For a sample of 2, anything from 22% to 100% is consistent with what the sample shows.

 

[insanogeddon]

much adoo..

The dnd allignment system as some mention is explicit, evil and good are forces with MORE weight than matter. They actually can dictate matters form... entire infinite planes in fact.

V willingly turned to evil forces to get a task done. Thats inately evil in dnd no matter what the trade off. Lets face it sooner or later (eventually) any falsely trapped souls are released and then get to go to their heaven
V offered his soul. So the most eternal and sacred thing possesed he offered to evil.
He had a way to suceed that involved sacrifice (good) by decapitating himself but his arrogance and ego (evil to consider self over others) made him a mewling slave to it.
He took great joy evil vs necessity :good) in the act gloating like a imature twit.
He went out of his way to extend and torture the creature(?i wonder).
Not once did he consider/protect others/his family but as a pre-emptive excuse (a prismatic sphere over his family would have been a sensible back up)
He cast an epic EVIL spell.

On so many accounts is he evil I would say its evil and chaotic to NOT think so.. but that would no doubt make many get all squooshy inside.