>two men are accused of killing the same person

>>two men are accused of killing the same person
>>only one could have done it
>>the other is innocent
>>there is no way to prove who killed the person.
>>you can either kill both men
>>or set both free
>>what do you do pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OI-9iMrWRrw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

personally i would set both free and i believe an innocent man shouldn't die because another is guilty.

Why not just ship them both to a piece of shit penal colony island?

Set up a fight to the death so one of them can live. Whoever wins is now a killer, you may kill him

Easy;

They both did it. Simple post modern logic.

need more information about what happened the day of the killing

Get someone who's already convicted of murder to kill them both. Add one charge of murder to his sentence. I jewed karma.

Kill both

How do we know for sure only one of them is guilty if we don't have any evidence?

set both of them free, duh

i let them fuck my wife

Murderr is a patriarchal cis-heteronormative construct.
Let's rather talk about the real victims, the women the killed person can no longer support.

guys. you are missing the points.

its a moral question.

should an innocent man die in order to punish a killer

or should a killer go free in order to save an innocent man.

give your reasoning.

>there is no way to prove who killed the person.
>you can either kill both men
>or set both free
>waah discuss in my arbitrary nonsensical definitions!!!

>what do you do pol?
sage demented nonpolitical threads

This, if either is white then they’ll found a great nation regardless

>There is only one solution to this
>1v1 deathmatch
>The person who hesitates, protests or shows a fearful reaction is the innocent one
>Let the deathmatch proceed anyway because survival of the fittest

I'm not kidding, the answer I gave you is my honest answer.

Let them both free. Sooner or later the actual killer will commit more crimes. Then you can find out who it was.

they both look like faggots.
kill both.

They fight to the death, God will grant the innocent man victory.

thunderdome time

Set both free. The two men in the pic are both white and not dindu so obviously they have not found the real killer.

This. I hate "thought experiment" nonsense.
They always give you inconsistent axioms so you can end up in a moral dilemma, to which Marxism is invariably the answer.

OP is a massive wanker.

An Innocent man should be more than willing to lay down his life if it meant saving dozens of other lives that would be killed by the murderer.

If you free the murderer to save the innocent man, then you really saved no one. The innocent man is free but so is the murderer who will proceed to continue his criminal activity unharmed.

only if they are black tho

see

Which one is whiter?

>Murdering a murderer for killing one innocent person, while also murdering another innocent person just to bring justice for the first innocent person who is already dead. Pointless.

If there are only these 2 options, i will set both free

Depends on your philosophy. From an utilitarian point of view, killing them both might be the best option, as the killer might remove other good citizens on the long run. However, if you value freedom above security, setting them both free might be the best option.
Outside of that moral dilemma, from a law stand point, you can't do shit to either one if you can't prove anything, so they'd probably wall free.

I do too. They just aren't realistic and most of the time you just side with both opinions and pick whichever just because.

ah yes release the muslim to commit more crimes he was simply acting on his instincts!

get fucking shot, muhammad

It's the 'murican way

This is a shitty game as there is no negative trade off. Kill both.

kill them both for being in the wrong place at the wrong time

>the other innocent
no sweety. he is a male, therefore he is a rapist. So we can kill em both.

Let them both out. See which has duping delight and kill that guy.

Retarded scenario.
Why is either of them suspected? What makes either of them a suspect?
If there is no way to tell which one of them did it, why can't I just add a random third person as a suspect?
Given the scenario there's zero reason why I should suspect either or think these two were more likely to have killed the guy than some random person you pull from the street.

Kill myself
> The consequences will never be the same

Let them both go, obviously.

I am no murderer and to presume that I have the authority to put an innocent man to death literally makes me a murderer as well.

torture them till one confessed

Kill the nigger

If it's a moral question, come up with a better example, you fucking retard.
Here's a better scenario.

A nigger just killed someone and took someone as a hostage. They get in a car together with the hostage and they're driving towards a sanctuary city. You realize that if the killer gets to the sanctuary city they will be freed of all charges and anyone who has a problem with it will be deemed a racist.
Should you prevent the killer from escaping by shooting him knowing full well that if he dies the car will crash, killing the innocent hostage?

hnnnnnnggg

>Accused
Set them both free since I don't have any actual facts to base my decision on. The accuser could be lying.

How do u plan on judging morality based on an impossible scenerio? Any conclusion will be under the pretense of a known falsehood by the participants. I see what you are trying to accomplish but it makes no sense. What I say I would do and what I would actually do would not be known even to myself until I did it. Fucking brainlet.

Put both in solitary until I get a confession

DO DNA TEST.
One with least jewish ancestory lives

Found the nigger Mayor Khan account

Same.
The other option is not of Aryan Morality.
But I would keep surveilance on both for a while to catch the one if he slips up.

We fucking get it.
Just kill the most Jewish looking one.

bible says killing is a sin

Set both free.

Also there should be virtually no liability for anyone who hurts or kills another person in progress of a crime, and no restrictions on "civilian" weapon ownership. This being the case, criminals would either be killed or choose not to commit crimes due to the risks.

Set them both free 50% is reasonable doughbt

youtube.com/watch?v=OI-9iMrWRrw

What if there were 100 people? Is 1% reasonable doubt? Where is the cut off?

if there is no way to determine who did it, both should be punished.

The state should punish those who commit crimes against society. Without this function, the state is meaningless.

Is the state also meaningless if it fails to punish the innocent?

This is zugzwang. Either way someone has to take responsibility for SOME decision and then you can pilpul that as morally wrong because you
a) let a killer free or
b) killed an innocent

The real answer, as always, is gas the kikes.

It doesn't matter how many people you add to the scenario, it's a retarded hypothetical scenario.

Yeah, the Swedish state is doing its best by punishing ethnic swedes for being Swedish.

What race are they?

HOW THE FUCK DID THESE PEOPLE END UNDER SUSPICION AND HOW WOULD THE SITUATION DIFFER IF ONLY 1 PERSON WAS UNDER SUSPICION?

FUCKING RETARDED SCENARIO OP

waterboard both and the 1st one that says they are guilty dies. they die for being a weak willed faggot

I think it's an very interesting question that reveals the personality type of the person who answers.

Kek

Both look like psychos i say both played a part in it. we should throw them in the iron bull!

kek

>innocent until proven guilty
because of that both go free obviously

Any degenerate who says neither, should just ask podesta if he wants your kids for his rituals fucking cunts

Holy shit that's actually good

I'll play devil's advocate for the retarded brainlet OP.
Let's say it's a train murder mystery. 3 people enter a fully automated train going trough an underground tunnel meaning no one can get in or get off the train while it's moving.
Person 1 goes in cabin 1, person 2 goes in cabin 2, person 3 goes in cabin 3.
When the train arrives at its destination, person 2 is found murdered. Both person 1 and 3 could have done it without alerting the other person since the guy murdered was in the middle cabin.

Depends on the race. Niggers, kikes and spics get the rope.

you nuke the sanctuary city for being a shithole city and all the people in it are complicate with the crime by harbouring the nigger

The only thing it can reveal about your personality is whether you're an idiot. Given the scenario you can't possibly make a choice, because the scenario makes no sense.
You can't make a moral choice in a nonsensical scenario, like if you had the trolley problem, except there is no leaver and there is only one set of tracks, someone gives you a gun and say ''hey, will you shoot the two people tied to the tracks or not?''

>only one could have done it

The other just watched and masturbated, right?

No, really, either you have evidence against both, or you have evidence against neither, there is no door #3 where a logic bomb gets them both off, sorry.

If there is no evidence, they both walk, if there is evidence, they both face a jury. GTFO with your railroad switch bullshit.

>only one could have done it
kill the one who could have done it and set the one who couldn't free

Kill the one with the darker skin

send both of them to Australia with the other felons

you probably have more people locked up in prison that our whole population

Tell the dumbfuck starya cun to fuck off back to Sup Forums with this faggotry.

This 100%

...

the planet is over populated. the people accusing the two men of killing some one may have done it. the families of the person who was killed might have done it. it could have been a coworker or some one who stalked them on facebook. all of the above must die and its labeled a matter of national security

>> The one on the right

STOP POSTING THIS FUCKING YOUTUBE "MUSIC" GARBAGE NO ONE LIKES IT NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON. STOP.

I remember you from the kratom thread, s t o p.

OP literally the situation you're putting forth is:

>the guilty person must be one of the ones we grabbed out of the street at random

if they are both white killem. if they are brown black yellow or what not. set them free.

i think you're too close to this case
to the gallows with you

Ding ding ding.

How would you tell the difference between duper's delight an innocent man happy to be spared an unjust death sentence?

You'll have to give more particulars. We had a case that is a better example of your OP.
Murder is committed, DNA evidence at the scene conclusively proves that the DNA belongs to the killer. The DNA is matched, but the killer has a twin. The prosecution can't prove which one committed the crime, so they are both released. That's Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Well, if you cant tell who did it, that means they both seem mentally sound.
Which makes it decently likely the killer wont kill again.

If you kill both, you killed an innocent man. If you let both go, you save an innocent man. Worse case scenario is the killer kills again, and things even out and you didnt really save anyone, but you also dont act as the killer since you are not at fault for the resulting death.

Only scenario where you would be "wrong" would be if the killer kills multiple people after you free him. Statistical averages would lead that to be an outlier though, so you should still set them free everytime.

That’s basically the concept that western justice is predicted upon. Better for X amount of criminals to escape justice than an innocent man being wrongfully charged for a crime.
Innocent until proven guilty.

Trial by combat. People like to pretend there is no reason for it. Lets assert that white dominance directly or figure it out. I go to the grocery store and every white person is old and dying or fat as fuck and not one could even pass for office hot. Tired of that shit.

Let the white man go free

Give both of them a fake execution and see how they react. The real killer will surely confess.

>there is no way to prove who killed the person.
Then they are both innocent in the eyes of the law. Period.

Besides that,

>you have to either

false. i do nothing. it's not my place to determine who lives or dies

I hope this will happen to you