At a desert oasis, A and B decide independently to murder C. A poisons C's canteen, and later B punches a hole in it. C dies of thirst. Who killed him?
A argues that C never drank the poison. B claims that he only deprived C of poisoned water. They're both right, but still C is dead. Who's guilty?
Now here is the answer that I came up with.
To answer the first question, B killed C. C died of thirst not of poison. Both A and B had malicous intentions but B's actions canceled out A's. I don't buy B's defense that he saved C's life for he didn't know that there was poison in the canteen. Remember that A and B acted independently of eachother.
Ethically, they are both guilty. Both acted on intentions to kill C and both, by themeselves would had been enough to kill C. Both acted on homicidal intentions and I think they should both be found equally guilty. Because it is the action that should be judged not the outcome.
Sound off and let me know what you think!
It was suicide. They were at a desert oasis and therefore C could have drank water without his canteen. A and B are just guilty of attempted murder.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, action may be paramount to outcome. That said, outcomes surely matter in attributing guilt in many cases, no? For example, let's say C drank the poison, died (ala Romeo) and B mistook C's corpse for his sleeping body (ala Juliet) and shot C with the intention of killing him. When forensics determines that C was dead before being shot, B is off the hook, despite his intentions, right? You can't, and shouldn't, be charged for your intentions here, should you?
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, then what distinguishes your example from mine? If this is not the case, where is my error?
Actually, the logic in the second part is flawed. "A" killed "C" and here's why. Removing "B's" actions from the equation, A poisoned the water. That doomed C irregardless of B's actions. Either C drinks the water and dies or C doesn't drink the water and he dies. Now if you are to remove A's actions from the equation: C lives if B doesn't punch a hole in the cateen. C dies if B punches the hole. Therefore, there is a chance that C lives if we remove the poison from the equation. But putting both parts together, B's actions does not effect the outcome. B's intentions were not noble, but the only effect B had was in dening C the choice of manner of death (poison vs. dehydration). Therefor, A killed C.
ReplyDeleteIn response to j...
ReplyDeleteI disagree that B would be off the hook for shooting C's corpse. Certainly that would qualify for at least attempted murder, wouldn't it? By thinking C was sleeping and not dead, and shooting him, the only thing that kept it from being murder was the fact that C was already dead, so certainly B is guilty of attempted murder, and only failed because A got to him first. Attempting to murder someone but failing is no different whether or not the person is dead, you still attepmted but failed. So the action is more important than the outcome, or there wouldn't even be such a crime as attempted murder.
I think both rxintern and mrlupu are correct with both of their arguments. Which means that mrlupu is correct in his assumption that both A and B are equally guilty because of their intentions. If I were an attorney, I would try to prosecute both of them with 1st degree murder AND attempted murder.
AManCalledBoo is correct. The setup says they are at an oasis. If C died of thirst, then either there is information we don't have. or C failed to drink for his own reasons and the rest is history. A & B are both guilty of attempted murder.
ReplyDeleteA is guilty, his action of poisoning C once taken had guaranteed that C would die, whether he drinks the water or not.
ReplyDeleteSo we can all just go around shooting people freely because, well, they're going to die eventually anyway, so our actions just don't matter. Seriously? Come on people. "C died of thist." B actually killed him. A tried and failed. He should still be found guilty, but if there was a reward for killing C, then A wouldn't get the prize.
ReplyDeleteIf you are about the cross the finish line first, and I'm right behind you, can't I just say, "well, I was going to cross the finish line either way, whether he crossed or not, so I'm the winner...or at least tied for first." Don't think so. There are term for what I accomplished: 2nd Place.
That is exactly what A got, 2nd Place.
Wait, so B is trying to kill C as well? First off, why would B think that putting a hole in C's canteen is going to have C die of thirst when they are in the middle of an oasis? B should know that this would not kill him. And secondly, why would he start claiming that he "saved" C from the poison when B's intents were initially to kill C?
ReplyDelete@Jakejo, @rxintern71: you're both wrong. While it is true that if A poisons the canteen, then C will die regardless of whether B punches a hole in it, it is also true that if B punches a hole in the canteen, C will die regardless of whether the water was poisoned. Both A and B, independently, ensured his death. Since B did not know that A had poisoned him, the fact that A acted first is irrelevant
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete