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 👍

It was America and only one charge which was murder.

Not guilty then.

I’m going to bed now as my DH will be waking me up soon when he gets in from his night shift.

I look forward to reading any other verdicts in the morning! Well, in a couple of hours when DH gets in 😴😴

@JoanOfAllTrades why not in Mississippi?

This is not light-hearted.

But ignoring that, I won't personally contribute towards a state-sponsored murder, which is what I believe the death penalty to be, so I'd be forced to vote not guilty. (And I suspect in the US I'd not be selected for the jury in such a case if it became known that this is my stance.) And that might mean that a terrible injustice happens and a guilty person goes free, possibly to offend again — that's the fault of the system, though, because they made me choose between that and making myself a murderer.

Everything else is irrelevant. As soon as I know it's a death penalty case I have to say not guilty.

Yes but buy him another one 😂😂

Is it a John Grisham book?

I think we must have a different interpretation of the term 'light hearted'.

Guilty - Even on a murder charge.

The Son or others were no immediate danger. He went and located a weapon and then fired it at a non moving person passed out (I assume on a bed as it was in a bedroom).

However, as others have said, I would expect the murder charge to then be vigorously balanced with a high level of mitigation due to his age, the level of violence in the house and the attack preceding the event.

I also find you guilty (of totally misrepresenting the words 'light hearted' )😆

I’d go with guilty, but I don’t think he’s should be tried as an adult. He’s still a child and should be treated as such. If I had an inkling that the judge wouldn’t treat him as a child when delivering a sentence, I’d go not guilty.

He’s guilty.

He shot an unconscious man in the head as revenge. It might be what any number of people would’ve done in that situation, but that’s only relevant to the punishment.

If my choice as juror was convict of murder knowing that he would face the death penalty or a very long prison term then I’d probably lie and say I thought he was not guilty.

John Grisham isn't it? I wouldn't be able to be a juror in Mississippi or many of the other US states because I would never vote to convict where there was a possibility that the death penalty would be used.
As you've laid it out, technically he's guilty because he did it, but the charge is wrong, as others have said. I'm not any kind of lawyer and everything I know comes from John Grisham but I think it's a lesser charge like man slaughter or potentially a plea for diminished responsibility or something like that. Also as a minor a short sentence should be involved but won't be.

Thank you all for your votes 😊

As some guessed, it is a Grisham book called A Time For Mercy. It’s the last book in the Jake Brigance series.

As happened in the book, we have a hung jury and so the boy will be tried again.

@tantrumingcoldchild Mississippi has currently suspended all executions as the last 2 (in 2 months) by lethal injection have gone wrong and 1 of the men actually took 6 excruciating hours to die.

I am sorry that my idea of lighthearted was a bit heavy and shall try harder next time. Perhaps I will consider the should I eat my son’s advent calendar as my next post 😉

That’s not correct, murder requires intent but not necessarily planning. For example, if I lose my shit and stab someone in the chest then it’s likely I intended to kill them even though I didn’t plan it, that is murder. If someone annoys me and I punch them and they die, that is likely to be manslaughter as I didn’t intend to kill them and wouldn’t have reasonably foreseen that they’d die by my actions.

Worth pointing out that it differs in America, first degree murder is premeditated, second degree murder is intentional but not premeditated, third degree murder is akin to manslaughter in the UK.

In this case I would find not guilty by reason of self defence, although it would be tricky! I think I’d probably weigh down on the side that the boy could have been scared the man would wake up (I’ve personally seen passed out drunk people wake up with a start and become aggressive) and harm him and his sister given they believed he’d already killed their mother.

@JoanOfAllTrades jury nullification is when the jury decides to say eff the law, we will find however we want despite (as in this case) the elements of a crime are clearly met.

This defendant appears to be guilty. He had the intent to kill (mens rea) and he committed the offense (actus reus). But a jury is a black box and they can kind of just do what they want.

Because he's being tried as an adult when he's only 16 I would vote not guilty

If he's was being tried as a child then I would vote guilty

Not sure how this is in any way lighthearted, but the son is guilty - there is no self defence here, but his lawyer could make a plea in mitigation for a reduced sentence

Guilty, he could have left with his sister. Absolutely not a believer, so none of that is relevant.

This is the exact storyline of John Grisham's "A Time For Mercy".

Can't decide in 30 seconds.
Can't imagine many juries convicting.

Yes it is. I did post this morning (my time) which was just past 1 am UK time and confirm it was that particular book as well as a few other things such as apologising because other people don’t seem to find this kind of moral dilemma lighthearted!