hypothetical murderer

[abcNKH]

My daughter and SIL asked me an interesting hypothetical question.

Suppose there is a set of conjoined twins and one commits a murder. There is no doubt about guilt, and there is also no doubt about the innocence of the other twin. If the guilty twin is sentenced to prison, the twin who is not guilty obviously must also go. So can you send them to prison?

[flygirl]

No, you can't. It's a maxim of our legal system that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. One must assume that philosophy applies here.

[Pops In]

Yes you can. For the protection of others if nothing else.

[Raven]

Charge the co-joined twin with accessory to murder?

seriously, I'm not sure how such a situation could come up with the twin being "completely" innocent, but for the sake of discussion, I agree with FlyGirl. It would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment" to send the innocent twin to prison when s/he isn't guilty of any crime, so we'd have no choice but to let the other one go, too.

[eva]

Gee, that's a little crazy. I guess there would have to be a compromise - perhaps an ankle bracelet.

[kingclick]

Co-joined twins? As an attorney I would easily argue that they both were complicit in the crime committed.

[Jory]

what if the other twin was in the process of dialing 911 to report the cojoined twin? What if they were doing everything to stop it but the police just didn't get there in time?

[kingclick]

Then the murder would have been stopped.

[ArcticPhoenix]

Conjoined twins fighting? I'd pay ten bucks to see that!


I'd have to agree with KC and Raven here. Likely, the twin that didn't commit the murder would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, or as an accomplice, or somesuch. A conjoined twin trying to stop its twin would be much the same as stopping one's self, I suppose.

This is a very strange hypothetical situation.

[Liade]

WOW, that is mind bending question. I was quick to agree that the 'other' twin would be an accessory and likely also be sentenced, but to a lesser degree, which then I think they would be released after the lesser time was up.

But then, I guess it is possible for the 'other' to be totally innocent. What if he/she was asleep when the one killed someone - whatever the reason.

The more I think about it, I believe that no matter what the circumstance of the murder, the twins would likely be under some sort of supervised house arrest. I don't think any judge or jury would put them in a prison simply due to their unique situation.

[Matthew S]

It is not a hard question. Your premise is that the conjoined twin that is innocent one does not have a choice. The one conjoined twin can not do something without the other so the innocent one has a choice and a chance to stop the guilty one. If the innocent one did not try and stop the other then the innocent one who did not commit the murder is guilty of being and accessory. Murder vs manslaughter usally includes the amount of planning, so the innocent one is guilty to some extent.

However to the op, no you can not sentence one to prison without sentencing the other.

[Jokimoto]

They should be forced to fight. If the innocent one wins, they both go free. If the guilty one wins, they're put to death. If either of them refuses to fight or shows signs of trying to throw the match, they both forfeit and are put to death. If it's a tie (they knock each other out, awesome) they forfeit and are put to death.
We shouldn't take a chance with these kinds of people, lest their telepathic abilities develop to a point where they're nigh unstoppable.

[JPSartre12]

No, you can't. It's a maxim of our legal system that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. One must assume that philosophy applies here.

What she said. The OP stated that there was no doubt of the other's innocence, so they couldn't send them both to prison.:agree:

[holychicken]

I am with flygirl and JP on this. Sending the other twin to jail, when they are without a doubt innoceny, would be a bastardization of the system. Not sure WHAT should be done in the case, but sending an innocent person to jail certainly is not the answer.

[Pops In]

My daughter and SIL asked me an interesting hypothetical question.

Suppose there is a set of conjoined twins and one commits a murder. There is no doubt about guilt, and there is also no doubt about the innocence of the other twin. If the guilty twin is sentenced to prison, the twin who is not guilty obviously must also go. So can you send them to prison?The answer has to be yes. I do not see how one can be absolutely innocent. S/he must have been complicit to a lesser or greater degree. That aside, if one was unaware of the other's actions until it came to light, ie innocent, and you were the innocent one, could your conscience allow you to let your murderous twin go free - (thinking of Heroes Jessica/Nicki)?

Never mind the legalities, it has to be safer for society for them both to be locked up. :paranoid:

[JPSartre12]

The answer has to be yes. I do not see how one can be absolutely innocent. S/he must have been complicit to a lesser or greater degree. That aside, if one was unaware of the other's actions until it came to light, ie innocent, and you were the innocent one, could your conscience allow you to let your murderous twin go free - (thinking of Heroes Jessica/Nicki)?

Never mind the legalities, it has to be safer for society for them both to be locked up. :paranoid:

Spoken like a true socialist. :trophy:

[Pops In]

Spoken like a true socialist. :trophy:Thank you. I'm not in favour of allowing murderers to walk free with the possibility of re- offending. Are you?

[JPSartre12]

Thank you. I'm not in favour of allowing murderers to walk free. Are you?

I'm more inclined to NOT put an innocent man in prison. While you have no problem incarcerating an innocent man for the good of the "collective", I have a problem with punishing an individual for the good of the whole.
The bedrock of our Constitution is the protection of individual rights over the majority. That's why we have a Constitutionally-limited Republic and NOT a mob-ruled Democracy or Socialist State.

[Pops In]

I'm more inclined to NOT put an innocent man in prison. While you have no problem incarcerating an innocent man for the good of the "collective", I have a problem with punishing an individual for the good of the whole.
The bedrock of our Constitution is the protection of individual rights over the majority. That's why we have a Constitutionally-limited Republic and NOT a mob-ruled Democracy or Socialist State.So you would let a murderer go free. How do you square that with killing hundreds of thousands for the sake of catching one?

[JPSartre12]

So you would let a murderer go free. How do you square that with killing hundreds of thousands for the sake of catching one?

And which "ONE" would that be? If SH was the only one that we wanted to "catch", we'd be out of Iraq. Unfortunately for us, there are many thousands that still want to drive into our troops, laden with explosives. We're trying to "catch" them, too.

[bionurse]

Shoot them both....hypothetically!

[holychicken]

Thank you. I'm not in favour of allowing murderers to walk free with the possibility of re- offending. Are you?
I am no in favor of that, but I am WAY less in favor of putting someone in jail for another's actions.

[Pops In]

And which "ONE" would that be? If SH was the only one that we wanted to "catch", we'd be out of Iraq. Unfortunately for us, there are many thousands that still want to drive into our troops, laden with explosives. We're trying to "catch" them, too.Yes, now we've stired it. We killed hundreds of thousands of their compatriots. Were they expected to throw us a tea party? Anyway, it isn't about politics or ancient scripture.

I am no in favor of that, but I am WAY less in favor of putting someone in jail for another's actions.Besides the possible danger of re-offending, what about the victim, or victims families? Our hypothetical murderer may be a serial killer, a child killer.... How would you feel if, hypothetically, the victim was your child, your brother, your mother, father....? Would you be so shy of locking up the innocent one with the guilty?

[JPSartre12]

Yes, now we've stired it. We killed hundreds of thousands of their compatriots. Were they expected to throw us a tea party? Anyway, it isn't about politics or ancient scripture.

I have news for you. Radical Islam didn't need the US' ousting of SH to get it started. Ever hear of Iran? Or Saudi Arabia for that matter? Both have been promoting radical islamic anti-West propaganda for decades.

[Pops In]

I have news for you. Radical Islam didn't need the US' ousting of SH to get it started. Ever hear of Iran? Or Saudi Arabia for that matter? Both have been promoting radical islamic anti-West propaganda for decades.It isn't news, but we didn't flatten Saudi Arabia or Iran for that matter, did we? No, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the illegal etc.. invasion of their country and the brag is 'it's good we got Saddam'. I don't see how that can be squared with the stance that we should let conjoined twins go because one of them is not a killer. Common sense, not holy writ, says we lock both of them up for the sake of public safety and justice for the victim(s).

[JPSartre12]

It isn't news, but we didn't flatten Saudi Arabia or Iran for that matter, did we? No, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the illegal etc.. invasion of their country and the brag is 'it's good we got Saddam'. I don't see how that can be squared with the stance that we should let conjoined twins go because one of them is not a killer. Common sense, not holy writ, says we lock both of them up for the sake of public safety and justice for the victim(s).

So in your twisted world, a mass murderers like Saddam Hussein should be allowed to run free but an innocent conjoined twin should be incarcerated? Wow!

[Pops In]

So in your twisted world, a mass murderers like Saddam Hussein should be allowed to run free but an innocent conjoined twin should be incarcerated? Wow!On the one hand, it's fine to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents to bring one murderer to justice, but on the other allow a murderer to go free for the sake of one innocent? And my world is twisted?

To the hypothetical that no-one has answered yet - So what if your kin was among this hypothetical killer's victims? Would you be in favour of negating justice for the sake of the innocent sibling then?

[JPSartre12]

On the one hand, it's fine to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents to bring one murderer to justice, but on the other allow a murderer to go free for the sake of one innocent? And my world is twisted?

You neglected to mention that the bulk of the innocent Iraqis are being killed by the insurgents, not the US military. Yes, there are some innocents killed as collateral damage, but being an old Brit, I'm sure that you understand the concept. After all, Winston Churchill was the king of collateral damage. Just ask the German survivors of the fire bombings of Dresden and other German cities.

To the hypothetical that no-one has answered yet - So what if your kin was among this hypothetical killer's victims? Would you be in favour of negating justice for the sake of the innocent sibling then?

I'm a definite tooth for a tooth kind of guy and I'd be OK with not incarcerating innocent people. As a conjoined twin, the innocent one's suffering enough, IMO.

[Pops In]

You neglected to mention that the bulk of the innocent Iraqis are being killed by the insurgents, not the US military. Yes, there are some innocents killed as collateral damage, but being an old Brit, I'm sure that you understand the concept. After all, Winston Churchill was the king of collateral damage. Just ask the German survivors of the fire bombings of Dresden and other German cities. I didn't think it necessary to mention that the hundreds of thousands of dead innocents is as a consequence of our actions. I am at a loss to see what the fuck Windbag Churchill has to do with it.


I'm a definite tooth for a tooth kind of guy and I'd be OK with not incarcerating innocent people. As a conjoined twin, the innocent one's suffering enough, IMO.This from the bloke who would punch straight in the nose anyone who told the truth to his hypothetically fat child. :huh:

[holychicken]

Besides the possible danger of re-offending, what about the victim, or victims families? Our hypothetical murderer may be a serial killer, a child killer.... How would you feel if, hypothetically, the victim was your child, your brother, your mother, father....? Would you be so shy of locking up the innocent one with the guilty?
I can play the emotional card as well. What if you had to go to prison for life because of something your sibling/parent/child did? What if your completely innocent grandchildren had to go to jail for life because of something someone else did? How would you feel then?

Emotion should play no role. The law is NOT about making people feel good it is about protecting the ideals of our society. One of the most important ideals of American society is freedom. One of the LEAST important "ideals" (if it is even an ideal at all) is locking up criminals. Seriously, I have a hard time seeing why you would rank the latter over the former.

Freedom will always, for me, be ranked over putting a criminal in jail because he *might* commit another crime.

[Pops In]

I can play the emotional card as well. What if you had to go to prison for life because of something your sibling/parent/child did? What if your completely innocent grandchildren had to go to jail for life because of something someone else did? How would you feel then?

Emotion should play no role. The law is NOT about making people feel good it is about protecting the ideals of our society. One of the most important ideals of American society is freedom. One of the LEAST important "ideals" (if it is even an ideal at all) is locking up criminals. Seriously, I have a hard time seeing why you would rank the latter over the former.

Freedom will always, for me, be ranked over putting a criminal in jail because he *might* commit another crime.Public safety and justice are the main reasons for putting murderers out of society, are they not? As to the law, I think what we are discussing is how the law should apply in this case. Law and justice being mutually exclusive. Justice is about emotion of course. The victim, or victims are, more often than not, someone's kin, could be yours. I have merely pointed out the reality implied by the hypothetical case.

[JPSartre12]

I didn't think it necessary to mention that the hundreds of thousands of dead innocents is as a consequence of our actions. I am at a loss to see what the fuck Windbag Churchill has to do with it.
And I'm at a loss to understand what I, personally, had to do with innocents being killed in Iraq.

This from the bloke who would punch straight in the nose anyone who told the truth to his hypothetically fat child. :huh:

If you're incapable of defending your family, then you're a drunken old loser. I'd protect my kids from harm without batting an eye. Maybe if you were a man, you'd see that as a father's responsibility.

[Pops In]

If you're incapable of defending your family, then you're a drunken old loser. I'd protect my kids from harm without batting an eye. Maybe if you were a man, you'd see that as a father's responsibility.A good parent would set a better example than unwarranted, mindless, thuggish violence, but then you'd let his killer go free. :huh:

[JPSartre12]

A good parent would set a better example than unwarranted, mindless, thuggish violence, but then you'd let his killer go free. :huh:


A good parent defends his kids against assholes like you.

[Pops In]

I can play the emotional card as well. What if you had to go to prison for life because of something your sibling/parent/child did? What if your completely innocent grandchildren had to go to jail for life because of something someone else did? How would you feel then?Now if you had fairly asked 'what if the siamese twins were your kin', then yes, I'd have to let them both be put out of harms way, and for justice of course.

[Pops In]

A good parent defends his kids against assholes like you.Behave yourself. :lol:

[holychicken]

Public safety and justice are the main reasons for putting murderers out of society, are they not? As to the law, I think what we are discussing is how the law should apply in this case. Law and justice being mutually exclusive. Justice is about emotion of course. The victim, or victims are, more often than not, someone's kin, could be yours. I have merely pointed out the reality implied by the hypothetical case.
My point is that Freedom should be placed above Punishment whenever there is a question. This is why adopted the "innocent until proven guilty" motto. It is silly for a free country to put an innocent person in jail just to get a criminal. It flies in the face of freedom, IMO.

[holychicken]

Now if you had fairly asked 'what if the siamese twins were your kin', then yes, I'd have to let them both be put out of harms way, and for justice of course.
No, imagine YOU are the innocent sibling being sent to prison because of your kin. Is that justice? What about justice for the innocent person? What about the safety of the innocent person? We all know that prison is not a safe place.

[Pops In]

No, imagine YOU are the innocent sibling being sent to prison because of your kin. Is that justice? What about justice for the innocent person? What about the safety of the innocent person? We all know that prison is not a safe place.Yes, if I were the innocent, I would want my sibling to pay for the crime, to be out of harms way, to give justice and closure to the victim's kin. That means my incarceration too. So be it.

[Pops In]

My point is that Freedom should be placed above Punishment whenever there is a question. This is why adopted the "innocent until proven guilty" motto. It is silly for a free country to put an innocent person in jail just to get a criminal. It flies in the face of freedom, IMO.In my opinion, it is extremely silly to allow a guilty murderer freedom.

[JPSartre12]

Behave yourself. :lol:

I thought that I was. ;)

[holychicken]

Yes, if I were the innocent, I would want my sibling to pay for the crime, to be out of harms way, to give justice and closure to the victim's kin. That means my incarceration too. So be it.
What about justice for you? How is sending you to prison justice for you and your family? Seems to be the opposite of justice in my book. TBH, I have a hard time believing that you actually hold this stance. . .that you think sending an innocent person to jail is actually justice and that you would be willing to go to jail for crime you did not commit. I am sorry, but it is absurd.

[holychicken]

In my opinion, it is extremely silly to allow a guilty murderer freedom.
Well then, I guess if we can't find the murderer for a specific crime, we should just put EVERYONE in jail because it would be "extremely silly to allow a guilty murderer freedom." If we put everyone in jail, certainly we would get the murderer too. So would you support this as well?

[JPSartre12]

What about justice for you? How is sending you to prison justice for you and your family? Seems to be the opposite of justice in my book. TBH, I have a hard time believing that you actually hold this stance. . .that you think sending an innocent person to jail is actually justice and that you would be willing to go to jail for crime you did not commit. I am sorry, but it is absurd.

Pops a socialist. He believes that what's best for "the hive" is OK with him no matter how unjust it is for the individual. The collective remains safe, that's his bottom line. If you have to throw individual freedom out the window in order to preserve the majority, he's OK with that. That's how socialists roll.

[Pops In]

Pops a socialist. He believes that what's best for "the hive" is OK with him no matter how unjust it is for the individual. The collective remains safe, that's his bottom line. If you have to throw individual freedom out the window in order to preserve the majority, he's OK with that. That's how socialists roll.I'm sure many a socialist would fit that description, as I'm sure many a fascist has no regard for mankind. But my personal opinion, and holychicken's, (correct me if I'm wrong, holy), have bugger all to do with politics.

[Pops In]

Well then, I guess if we can't find the murderer for a specific crime, we should just put EVERYONE in jail because it would be "extremely silly to allow a guilty murderer freedom." If we put everyone in jail, certainly we would get the murderer too. So would you support this as well?But in this hypothetical case we have found the murderer. So what's your point?

[holychicken]

Pops a socialist. He believes that what's best for "the hive" is OK with him no matter how unjust it is for the individual. The collective remains safe, that's his bottom line. If you have to throw individual freedom out the window in order to preserve the majority, he's OK with that. That's how socialists roll.
Uh oh. If I don't change my stance to agree with him are you going to revoke my socialist membership card? :)

[Pops In]

What about justice for you? How is sending you to prison justice for you and your family? Seems to be the opposite of justice in my book. TBH, I have a hard time believing that you actually hold this stance. . .that you think sending an innocent person to jail is actually justice and that you would be willing to go to jail for crime you did not commit. I am sorry, but it is absurd.Sure I, as the innocent get locked up, but I am doing my public duty by seeing my murdering sibling off the streets. In my opinion it is absurd not too. How the hell would I live with myself, and him, if I didn't?

[holychicken]

But in this hypothetical case we have found the murderer. So what's your point?
I am talking outside the hypothetical case. We already know that you are willing to imprison one innocent person to get a murderer, so I was wondering how many innocent people you were willing to imprison to get a murderer. Is it just one? How about 10. . . or 20? Or how about the entire population?

[Pops In]

I am talking outside the hypothetical case. We already know that you are willing to imprison one innocent person to get a murderer, so I was wondering how many innocent people you were willing to imprison to get a murderer. Is it just one? How about 10. . . or 20? Or how about the entire population?Irrelevant absurdity. We are talking of a caught and convicted murderer.

[holychicken]

Irrelevant absurdity. We are talking of a caught and convicted murderer.
Okay, let me revise then. Say we have 2 completely individual people. Don't ask the specifics because I do not know them, however, one of them is definitely guilty of murder and the other definitely innocent. The problem is that we cannot tell which one is innocent and which one is guilty, only that one is definitely guilty and the other definitely innocent.

Do we send both to prison or do we allow both to go?

[JPSartre12]

I'm sure many a socialist would fit that description, as I'm sure many a fascist has no regard for mankind. But my personal opinion, and holychicken's, (correct me if I'm wrong, holy), have bugger all to do with politics.

I disagree. Your politics has EVERYTHING to do with the scenario. People who value individual freedom aren't socialists and wouldn't send an innocent man to jail for the good of the collective. Socialists and Communists put the good of the majority ahead of the individual's freedom. Politics = personal values in this instance.

But in this hypothetical case we have found the murderer. So what's your point?

The point is that the murderer is attached to an innocent man that people who value individual freedom would say trumps the guilty man's need to be punished.

Uh oh. If I don't change my stance to agree with him are you going to revoke my socialist membership card? :)

Depends. Socialists are rarely monolithic in their beliefs. What other socialist beliefs do you hold? ;)

[Pops In]

Okay, let me revise then. Say we have 2 completely individual people. Don't ask the specifics because I do not know them, however, one of them is definitely guilty of murder and the other definitely innocent. The problem is that we cannot tell which one is innocent and which one is guilty, only that one is definitely guilty and the other definitely innocent.

Do we send both to prison or do we allow both to go?If you can't secure a conviction then you have let them go. A different situation from there being no doubt about the guilt and identity of one of them, which I took the OP to mean.

[holychicken]

Depends. Socialists are rarely monolithic in their beliefs. What other socialist beliefs do you hold? ;)
According to you, plenty. :)

[JPSartre12]

According to you, plenty. :)

Well then, good news for you. You're still a socialist. ;)

[holychicken]

If you can't secure a conviction then you have let them go. A different situation from there being no doubt about the guilt and identity of one of them, which I took the OP to mean.
But then you are letting a guilty murderer go free, which you previously called "extremely silly." And what about justice for the family of the victims, which you seemed concerned about earlier? And what about the fact that they might murder again? What if they were a serial killer or it was your family that was victimized?

It just seems to me that your earlier concerns contradict the stance you took in your last post.

[holychicken]

Well then, good news for you. You're still a socialist. ;)

:woohoo:

I was really scared there for a moment.

[JPSartre12]

:woohoo:

I was really scared there for a moment.

IMO, socialists should be scared. After all, they scare the Hell out of us that love individual freedom. Turnaround is only fair play. ;)

[Pops In]

But then you are letting a guilty murderer go free, which you previously called "extremely silly." And what about justice for the family of the victims, which you seemed concerned about earlier? And what about the fact that they might murder again? What if they were a serial killer or it was your family that was victimized?

It just seems to me that your earlier concerns contradict the stance you took in your last post.Guilt and conviction are separate matters.

[Jokimoto]

Hell I guess I'm Socialist too, Pops. I'd lock that Siamese motherfucker up so fast his head would spin, his brother's too.
This is ridiculous. You guys took an absurd hypothetical and turned it into a chest-thumping "who-loves-our-values-more" match. It's certainly true that one of our greatest achievements has been putting the ideal of innocent-until-proven-guilty into practice. It's also true that we all give up certain "freedoms" for the "greater good." You are not free to drive at unlimited speeds. You might argue that you're an ace driver and can handle it, but society has deemed that it's for the best, the greater good, that we all drive a little slower than some of us might like. I'm fine w/that. Most people are, which apparently makes the majority of us socialist.
I'd love to see our government stop spending billions a month on warfare and spend it on domestic programs instead. For what we spend in Iraq we could cover an awful lot of issues here at home. Is that socialist too? Excellent. Sign me up. It'd be far better to hear people bitching about their taxes paying for their neighbors healthcare, and their own, than to hear them not bitching about the trillions of dollars missing from the Pentagon's books, or the billions spent on an unchecked war for oil and power.

[JPSartre12]

Hell I guess I'm Socialist too, Pops. I'd lock that Siamese motherfucker up so fast his head would spin, his brother's too.
This is ridiculous. You guys took an absurd hypothetical and turned it into a chest-thumping "who-loves-our-values-more" match. It's certainly true that one of our greatest achievements has been putting the ideal of innocent-until-proven-guilty into practice. It's also true that we all give up certain "freedoms" for the "greater good." You are not free to drive at unlimited speeds. You might argue that you're an ace driver and can handle it, but society has deemed that it's for the best, the greater good, that we all drive a little slower than some of us might like. I'm fine w/that. Most people are, which apparently makes the majority of us socialist.
I'd love to see our government stop spending billions a month on warfare and spend it on domestic programs instead. For what we spend in Iraq we could cover an awful lot of issues here at home. Is that socialist too? Excellent. Sign me up. It'd be far better to hear people bitching about their taxes paying for their neighbors healthcare, and their own, than to hear them not bitching about the trillions of dollars missing from the Pentagon's books, or the billions spent on an unchecked war for oil and power.

We lose a bit of what makes us American when we begin to embrace socialistic beliefs. I bet that I can trace the majority of America's woes directly back to their socialist roots. Social Security, Welfare, Unionization, the list goes on and on. The US became a great nation not because it sought to reward everyone as equals, but because it allowed individuals to excel. It was the individual, not the collective, that made this country what it is today.
All of the social engineering that has taken place over the past century hasn't made this country better. It has made it worse. You talk about $1Trillion spent on the war in Iraq. How about the $7 Trillion spent on the "War on Poverty", a war that we're not only losing but making worse!!!
Or how about the $20Billion/year "War on Drugs"? Do you think we're winning that one? It's no wonder that the dollar isn't worth shit any more (the USD is worth less than the Canadian dollar right now), we are borrowing money from former third world countries that have embraced capitalism in order to fund our socialism. :soapbox: :damnit: :cussing: :rant: :tantrum: :banghead3

[Pops In]

We lose a bit of what makes us American when we begin to embrace socialistic beliefs. I bet that I can trace the majority of America's woes directly back to their socialist roots. Social Security, Welfare, Unionization, the list goes on and on. The US became a great nation not because it sought to reward everyone as equals, but because it allowed individuals to excel. It was the individual, not the collective, that made this country what it is today.
All of the social engineering that has taken place over the past century hasn't made this country better. It has made it worse. You talk about $1Trillion spent on the war in Iraq. How about the $7 Trillion spent on the "War on Poverty", a war that we're not only losing but making worse!!!
Or how about the $20Billion/year "War on Drugs"? Do you think we're winning that one? It's no wonder that the dollar isn't worth shit any more (the USD is worth less than the Canadian dollar right now), we are borrowing money from former third world countries that have embraced capitalism in order to fund our socialism. :soapbox: :damnit: :cussing: :rant: :tantrum: :banghead3
JP, there are things outside of politics and religion. Things we can form an independent view on. We are not all steeped in and conditioned by our flag, constitution, bible and such bollocks. We are able to judge things on their merits and not for the party line and the bloody Merkin values. Justice is apolitical and may it always remain so.

[JPSartre12]

JP, there are things outside of politics and religion. Things we can form an independent view on. We are not all steeped in and conditioned by our flag, constitution, bible and such bollocks. We are able to judge things on their merits and not for the party line and the bloody Merkin values. Justice is apolitical and may it always remain so.

OK, then tell me the merit of stealing from one person and giving to another.

[Pops In]

OK, then tell me the merit of stealing from one person and giving to another.What's the relevance to these Siamese twins? :confused:

[JPSartre12]

What's the relevance to these Siamese twins? :confused:

Other than the fact that you're willing to incarcerate an innocent man for the good of the hive? Nothing. :rolleyes2

[Pops In]

Other than the fact that you're willing to incarcerate an innocent man for the good of the hive? Nothing. :rolleyes2Absolutely. Nothing. Politics doesn't enter in to it.

Now if one of these siamese twins was convicted of murder, it wouldn't be a hard task to find the other one guilty of complicity, as it is hardly concievable that s/he could be absolutely innocent - absurd hypothetical, as someone said - and lock em up. And, changing my stance with this one perhaps, if we were absolutely certain that one of them did it but we don't know which one, we can lock em up for aiding and abetting or complicity in the murder(s). Either way you don't let a murder loose. :huh: