Moral dilemma (lighthearted)

[JoanOfAllTrades]

I re-read a book recently as it’s an old favourite and it always makes me think.

Imagine this, you’re on a jury and the defendant is pleading “Not Guilty”.

Here’s the situation: defendant is the son of a woman who lives in a domestic violence situation with said son and a younger daughter aged 14. Due to lots of homelessness etc., this little trio haven’t really settled down anywhere until mum meets this man. This man, on the surface, is a good man. He’s a police officer, volunteers with charities, fundraises for good causes etc., etc. However, he also has a mean streak and drinks. Heavily.

One night, he arrives home, extremely drunk and beats the woman into a coma. The kids are upstairs barricaded in the daughter’s bedroom. He stomps upstairs and tries to break in the bedroom then goes back downstairs to his own bedroom. After a time, the son decides to go downstairs as the house is quiet. The daughter is too scared to stay upstairs by herself so goes with him. Both of them see the mum on the floor covered in blood and think she’s dead. The son, hearing a noise from the bedroom, quietly goes in there but the man is passed out drunk. He gets the man’s gun and shoots him, after being scared that the man will wake up. He shoots him in the head at point blank range. Then he calls the police.

Facts:
The son has only ever handled guns once before when the man took him shooting to try to “make him a man”
Both kids thought their mum was dead
This kind of beating, whilst not usually so bad, was commonplace in this house
Unbeknownst to both mum and son, the man was assaulting the daughter and she was pregnant with his child
The son is 16 but being tried as an adult
The mother has since made a full recovery and works 2 jobs to make ends meet
The man had a blood alcohol level that would normally end up in the person being dead within a few hours anyway
The son admitted to the police multiple times that he had shot the man dead
Remember: at the time that the son shot the man, neither he nor the mum knew that the man was repeatedly assaulting the daughter!

So, in a curious case where if the defendant is found not guilty, justice is served and if the defendant is found guilty, justice is served, would you vote guilty or not guilty?

My religious beliefs tell me that if one innocent person dies then it means the death of all of humanity but is this man an innocent person? And my beliefs also tell me that it is only for God to judge a person as no one is perfect. But society dictates that we have to judge others when presented with facts and that it is also our duty to be part of a jury. I’ve had to do jury duty twice but thankfully the cases weren’t this hard!

So, over to you, mumsnetters 👍

If the evidence was beyond reasonable doubt and the case thus proven by the protection I would vote guilty.

The other stuff does not absolve the crime but would mitigate the sentence

At 16 he could have led his sister outside and called for help, so without any emotional feeling behind a decision, he is in my mind guilty of aw ins degree murder of in America.

However, a trial would bring to light all the background and I would see the demeanour of the defendant and vote not guilty due to diminished responsibility.

Not sure if that’s what legally could happen just my opinion as to what I would like to happen.

My religious beliefs tell me that if one innocent person dies then it means the death of all of humanity
I really don't understand this, surely innocent people die all the time?

I mean, it’s not the most light hearted thread I’ve ever read….! 🤣🤣 I thought it would be ‘should I eat all of my son’s advent calendar’ or something.

Unfortunately because the defendant is pleading only Not Guilty as opposed to Not Guilty Due To Diminished Responsibility, you would of course be able to vote that he was Not Guilty but that might make you unpopular, as in this scenario, being based in America, the jury must all agree on the verdict! And your fellow juror @spidereggs is going with a Guilty verdict!

😂😂😂🙈🙈🙈. And what is your verdict?

Of course he’s guilty, guilty means he did it. it has to be a factual verdict. It’s not even a question.

But that doesn’t mean he should go to jail. The mitigating circumstances impact the sentence. He could be put into a mental health facility and be out a year later. but factually you can’t find him anything but guilty

This is light-hearted? I'd love to see what you class as serious.

The son is guilty, based on the evidence you have described here. Legal cases are based on evidence.

I dread to think what you were like as a juror, if you think 'not guilty' is acceptable.

The morality of the son's actions are a different question.

I had to read this twice too and don’t understand it

Exactly. And as a consequence, the fabric of society is slowly being eroded and our humanity is becoming more inhumane. You only have to read some of the judgemental posts on this and other forums to see that.

Put perhaps another way, evil grows when good people do nothing. And how often do we read in the newspapers about people shouting for help and no one actually helping them? You could argue that those “innocent” bystanders aren’t good people, but what then is a good person?

A couple of years ago, a suicidal girl in Japan was on a social media site and whilst live streaming, and egged on by her “followers”, she jumped from the roof of a high rise building. That girl lay there dying whilst her “followers” posted such comments as “this is boring, just die already”.

But! This is too deep for my lighthearted thread. I just felt that this book, really makes me think about what is and isn’t justice and how it’s so important to make sure that I conduct myself in a decent way and be the best person I can be, every day!

You haven't said what he's charged with. I'd say guilty of culpable homicide/manslaughter but not murder, which requires planning.

This isn’t about what I think. You are the juror.

Good point. He was charged with murder!

Well, it is meant to be a bit of fun really and it’s interesting to read other people’s perspectives as well. It’s not like I’m trying to negotiate a peace treaty or something.

Oh, I should also have mentioned, along with the charge being murder, the sentence would be the death penalty. However, since this takes place in Mississippi, and I just read the other day that executions are on hold right now because the last 2 by lethal injection went wrong and one of the, erm, convicted felons took 6 hours to die and excruciating death, our young boy may well live to see his 30th birthday!

I don't see how he can found anything other than guilty, but a judge should take all the mitigating factors into account when sentencing. Law seems to me to be all about precedents, so it will probably depend on what has happened in similar cases before.

Is the book set in the US, out of interest? I feel (perhaps wrongly) as if they'd automatically opt for long term incarceration over there, especially if the people involved are not white.

Apologies, just seen you have already said it is an American case.

Is this a Stephen King book? It’s driving me mad trying to place it!

Jury nullification, baby

All involved were white, it was in America and the penalty is death if found guilty of murder, which was the charge because according to the prosecution, the man was rendered unconscious by the huge amount of alcohol he had consumed and thus was not a threat at the time the boy shot him.

No

Not in Mississippi.

If the charge is murder, then not guilty.

If murder, I'd go not guilty/not proven (I am in Scotland and would prefer the latter) because of the planning side of a murder charge. But I guess most prosecutors would have subsidiary charges eg second degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon, where I'd find guilty.