The "Pilate's Dilemma" Scenario

This is not a religious conversation, you've got like half a dozen topics for that already.

So the scenario goes is that you have the power to condemn or free a man accused of various crimes. The man in front of you now, however, is innocent and you know this for a fact, however, an angry group of people are standing outside and if that man is not killed, then that group of people will likely become violent and shed a lot of unnecessary blood that you will not be able to completely stop.

The question is: Do you let the innocent person go free and put him under protective custody while the mob rages outside or condemn that man and avoid a lot of bloodshed?

EDIT: For those new to the topic, it's a question of morals and personal beliefs, not what sort of plan you can think of using your armed guards to make your outcome work out.

edited 25th Apr '11 1:42:40 PM by Usht

Fake his death.

Present the evidence to the mob.

Make a call to the police to disperse an unlawful mob.

Ask for an escort.

What manner of forces do I have at mi disposal.

Eh, I'd flip a coin, tbh.

Well, Kino, if you want to go with the original scenario, a good chunk of guards with armor, spears, and short swords that are more than ready to gut the group.

Also, going by the original scenario, the crowd wants to the man die, so it's going to be problematic to fake his death.

edited 22nd Apr '11 2:01:35 PM by Usht

Intimidation then. These are people looking for a spectacle. You said they can take the mob right? If any member of the mob attacks have the guards kill them.

Nonsense. Just fake a hanging. You just need rope.

edited 22nd Apr '11 2:04:31 PM by TheDeadMansLife

The crowd is going down.
Basically, they think they are above the law, and it is simple: Kill them if they attempt to do so.
Even better: Order your guards to start killing them off premptive, because that fact we have omnipotence over the scenario ruins it.

So the answer is iron fist tyranny? Okay then, but keep in mind, even with intimidation, you'll probably have more than one death occur.

Also, faking a hanging is rather difficult. And if you want to go even more with the original scenario, they want to see the man crucified, which I would consider insanely difficult to fake.

[1] I thought you meant this.

I probably save the man because there's no information about anyone else.

Usht: Of course. If we know for 100% certainty that they will riot if the man who is innocent receives a fair judgment, there is no other solution unless the state is willing to compromise beyond its morals.
Now, if we do not know for certain that they will riot, only that they are aggressive, we are going to let the riot happen.
It is as simple as that.

Yeah. Its not tyranny when you let them strike first. It is just lawful. You are obeying the intent and letter of the law at the same time. Win Win.

A crucifixion would be hard to fake. A hand all you got to do is hang them under the arms while a a noose is tight around their neck. Drop them only a small amount so they do not swing and have em twitch for a couple of minutes.

It's an interesting problem. I am somewhat utilitarian minded, but I don't think I can demand sacrifices for the greater good from others. That would not be fair. So I guess the answer is to accept the riots.

Accept the riots, pardon the man.

It is unacceptable to condemn a man to death purely to appease people. If that man had done wrong then, yes, it is reasonable to condemn him. If he has done nothing wrong, then...

Go on a mob-ass-whooping spree, since I'd probably be one of the Guards. We wouldn't initiate hostilities, but we'd damn well finish them if they didn't figure out to back off. Mobs don't like pointy spear stuff anyway.

More devil's advocate talk:

But wouldn't stopping the mob only cause more political unrest? What if the scenario snowballs? Would you be alright with that?

And similarly, what if the mob is so large as to be able to overwhelm any number of men you have on hand to hold the peace? It may get ugly if they end up unhappy with you not executing the man.

It might be for the greater good to have the man killed, yes. But as said, I don't think I have the right to sacrifice others for the greater good.

At least in this abstract plane of moral dilemma. Who knows how I'd react if that really happened to me IRL. Then I might evaluate how much unrest there could be... but that wouldn't necessarily be right.

Then it's pretty simple; he gets released. the crowd has two options; disperse and go home, or die.

Even when doing that makes you a target and even when the crowd can over power your guards?

If I definitely know for sure they can overpower my guards and hence kill the man anyway... well, in that case I can't save him anyway, so having him kill myself would be the... less bad variant.

But what if you can let him escape while still having your guards overpowered? You two could escape, but then your guards will be injured if not dead and you'll be driven out of power.

Let him go. No matter how large or powerful the mob is, let him go. Killing him go makes the state an arm of the mob, which defeats the entire purpose of having a state.

"Killing him go makes the state an arm of the mob, which defeats the entire purpose of having a state."

This awesome! [1] warning:anarchist vid

edited 22nd Apr '11 5:41:01 PM by LoveHappiness

Give out kittens in exchange for them not injuring the man. Seriously. How can they not love kittens?

Now seriously, Only More So. Given the information available in the original proposition and no extra. Pardon the man. Offer him a short time of refugee con the condition he accepts as a prisoner (ie.: as if he was declared guilty, but not condemned to death). Assure the innocence of the man by putting your charge to the disposition of a higher authority if available. Announce to the mob that if they attempt to take the law on their own hands, they will be met with exemplary reprisal. Start with killing the child of anyone who riots, assuming the guards can get to reach the kids.

If, as an addendum to the original problem, there is the risk that the mob can outpass my guards, then preemptively send a group of messenger to assemble my outside forces (I have some, right?) to scan the situation and go out to burn down all the homes of the rioters, or just the entire city if rioters can not be identified, as soon as the mob commences hostilities. Have the local guards massacre as much as they can. Kill the prisoner myself and expect my death.

Ask the mob for five percent of its size in volunteers, must include ringleaders. If they agree to die, execute them along with the man.

Watch them shut the fuck up and go home. May not work in all cases.

Wow, do I have shitty guards or something? They might outnumber us, but that's where skill, experiences, equipment, and terrain come to our advantage; enough people die trying to break the line and they quickly lose the will to fight.