• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you give the rapist an alibi for a cime he didn't commit?

Do you give the rapist an alibi for a cime he didn't commit?

  • Yes, you tell the truth and he goes free.

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • No, you let him be wrongfully convicted because he should have been convicted of the other crime.

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • Total voters
    17

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's a moral dilemma. The unthinkable happens -- some awful person rapes your 13 year-old daughter. Unfortunately, it's not possible to convict him, so you move away and try to put your life back together. A couple years later, you're at a restaurant when your favorite show comes on TV. At the same time, you notice the rapist sitting at another table looking not very happy. You choose not to confront him and try to just watch your show instead.

A few days later, you learn that the rapist has been arrested for murder and that there's a good case against him. You are delighted at the thought that he'll likely go to prison. However, you learn that the time of the murders coincide with the time you saw the rapist in the restaurant. You're sure of the time because of the favorite TV show that was on. There's no way he could be the murderer. Perhaps he hired someone to do it, but you don't know that for a fact.

If you come forward and tell the truth, the rapist won't be wrongfully convicted of murder. If you keep your mouth shut, he'll likely go to prison. What do you do?
 
Keep it shut. The law is blind, and sometimes in that blindness, wrongs do not get righted. This case is one such case.

Rapists are impossible to rehabilitate, and they are usually sociopathic. Which means they are likely to commit a crime along those lines again. Psychologically normal people don't rape.

I'll admit I'm not totally comfortable with that decision. But nor am I comfortable with a rapist going free. I am less so with the latter.
 
That depends. What evidence do I have that this man is, in fact, a rapist? And why don't the authorities and courts also have this evidence?
 
If the rapist is innocent of the murder, he may well have been innocent of the rape. Maybe THAT'S why you couldn't convict him? :shrug:
 
I am assuming simply for the purpose of the hypothetical that all situations presented are known to be true (i.e. that he is the rapist, that he was wrongly either never tried or dismissed, etc).

Of course, if these aren't known truths, that changes everything. But I'm allowing it to be true simply in the spirit of the hypothetical, which I'm assuming it only meant to deal with the end scenario: you know he wasn't at the murder scene.
 
Keep it shut. The law is blind, and sometimes in that blindness, wrongs do not get righted. This case is one such case.

Rapists are impossible to rehabilitate, and they are usually sociopathic. Which means they are likely to commit a crime along those lines again. Psychologically normal people don't rape.

I'll admit I'm not totally comfortable with that decision. But nor am I comfortable with a rapist going free. I am less so with the latter.

More precisely, the law is bulls**t. You're as likely to get justice from a court as you would getting heads from a coin toss. If the person knew for a FACT that this person raped their child, I'd let him burn.
 
Keep it shut. The law is blind, and sometimes in that blindness, wrongs do not get righted. This case is one such case.

Rapists are impossible to rehabilitate, and they are usually sociopathic. Which means they are likely to commit a crime along those lines again. Psychologically normal people don't rape.

I'll admit I'm not totally comfortable with that decision. But nor am I comfortable with a rapist going free. I am less so with the latter.

Not sure about the rehabilitation thing.

A significant proportion of rapists commit their crimes while under the influence. I'd say there's a good shot at rehabilitating those.
 
Not sure about the rehabilitation thing.

A significant proportion of rapists commit their crimes while under the influence. I'd say there's a good shot at rehabilitating those.

This may depend on what sort of rape you're talking about. Rape laws carry well into the gray area. For some kinds of date rape, that may be true. But even so, there is pretty much always something psychologically abnormal about a rapist. The same could be true of someone who gets violent under the influence. It is not a normal reaction, and alcohol/drugs are not an excuse. The exception may be extreme amphetamine abuse, which can cause psychosis.

But the profile for someone who rapes a pubescent girl is that they are typically very well-planned, manipulative, and sociopathic. That is similar to the profile for the majority of rapists, but finding access to a girl that young as an adult almost requires it.
 
As long as all I have to do is keep silent, I would absolutely let him hang. Next best thing to killing him with my own hands, and your hypothetical already assumes I haven't done that.
 
This may depend on what sort of rape you're talking about. Rape laws carry well into the gray area. For some kinds of date rape, that may be true. But even so, there is pretty much always something psychologically abnormal about a rapist. The same could be true of someone who gets violent under the influence. It is not a normal reaction, and alcohol/drugs are not an excuse. The exception may be extreme amphetamine abuse, which can cause psychosis.

But the profile for someone who rapes a pubescent girl is that they are typically very well-planned, manipulative, and sociopathic. That is similar to the profile for the majority of rapists, but finding access to a girl that young as an adult almost requires it.

Well yeah, the pubescent girl thing is different because that sort of thing implies calculation. All I'm saying is, I wouldn't just say "you cannot rehabilitate a rapist." The alcohol thing is a different story. A person who only gets violent under the influence is not necessarily an incurable rage machine. Some are really just affected that way. I know people who don't smoke weed because it always makes them paranoid and therefore unhappy. I'd tag that as pretty abnormal.
 
I would talk. Letting the murderer get away is not something I could take.
 
More precisely, the law is bulls**t. You're as likely to get justice from a court as you would getting heads from a coin toss. If the person knew for a FACT that this person raped their child, I'd let him burn.
How would someone know for a fact that someone raped their child other than their child's word?
 
I would talk. Letting the murderer get away is not something I could take.

You brought up a good point which I am sure some of the posters did not think about. I think most people would have no problem with the child rapist behind bars getting ass raped by his fellow inmates, I know I do not have a problem with that. However like most people I would have a problem with the murder victim and victim's family not getting any actual justice and the murderer free to possibly kill again. It sounds all good letting the rapist go to jail for a crime he did not commit until you consider the consequences.
 
Last edited:
I would talk. Letting the murderer get away is not something I could take.
I would still keep it shut, because they may have a hard time finding the real murder. He raped my daughter, so of selfish reasons I rather want to see him behind bars. Also, it is easier to keep shut than to lie.
 
I would still keep it shut, because they may have a hard time finding the real murder. He raped my daughter, so of selfish reasons I rather want to see him behind bars. Also, it is easier to keep shut than to lie.

You don't know he raped your daughter, but you do know he didn't commit the murder. Letting a person be put behind bars for a crime they didn't commit is just as bad, if not worse then letting a bad guy get away. The real murderer should be caught, not have you fulfill some revenge fantasy.
 
Here's a moral dilemma. The unthinkable happens -- some awful person rapes your 13 year-old daughter. Unfortunately, it's not possible to convict him, so you move away and try to put your life back together. A couple years later, you're at a restaurant when your favorite show comes on TV. At the same time, you notice the rapist sitting at another table looking not very happy. You choose not to confront him and try to just watch your show instead.

A few days later, you learn that the rapist has been arrested for murder and that there's a good case against him. You are delighted at the thought that he'll likely go to prison. However, you learn that the time of the murders coincide with the time you saw the rapist in the restaurant. You're sure of the time because of the favorite TV show that was on. There's no way he could be the murderer. Perhaps he hired someone to do it, but you don't know that for a fact.

If you come forward and tell the truth, the rapist won't be wrongfully convicted of murder. If you keep your mouth shut, he'll likely go to prison. What do you do?

I would never involve myself with anything - If I were in that position then surely someone else who cares more would have seen him go to the restaurant, eat, etc etc etc.

Me getting involved = legal fees and a headache.
 
You don't know he raped your daughter, but you do know he didn't commit the murder. Letting a person be put behind bars for a crime they didn't commit is just as bad, if not worse then letting a bad guy get away. The real murderer should be caught, not have you fulfill some revenge fantasy.

I do know he raped my daughter, I just didn't have the evidence to convict him. It says so in the first post.

I know that the moral right thing to do is to give the rapist an alibi, but if that happened to me in real life I would not give him an alibi. I would want to see him behind bars.
 
Sorry....but "two wrongs don't make a right". To sit silent and allow an innocent man to be convicted is about an immoral of an offense that anyone could every commit.

Having him convicted of a murder that he did not commit in no way does justice for the crime that he got away with.

Remaining silent in this situation is as digusting and grotesque of a crime as the child rape.
 
Remaining silent in this situation is as digusting and grotesque of a crime as the child rape.

How can you equate not providing evidence with child rape?! That is just disgusting!
 
So, a choice between being honourable and being just?

Honour's useless, it is the death of otherwise good men.
 
How can you equate not providing evidence with child rape?! That is just disgusting!

Easy....you are sitting back doing nothing and letting an innocent person get convicted. That is just as disgusting of an act as the person who rapes a child.
 
Easy....you are sitting back doing nothing and letting an innocent person get convicted. That is just as disgusting of an act as the person who rapes a child.

He should be able to find evidence that doesn't include said individual for his alibi.

If he was at a restaurant then he should have a receipt - other witnesses - **** - a life that doesn't require that the individual who was once wronged to be expected to be their friend, now, and defend them in court.

But I'm lost: how can there be not enough evidence to convict a rapist of a crime that was committed - but not enough evidence to not convict a man of a crime that wasn't committed? Someone see something totally ****ed up with that? . . . That sounds like a failed justice system, to me.

With the way this is going it sounds like there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict him of a crime he didn't commit anyway.

And what makes her the one doing wrong by doing nothing? What about this other individual - where is his wrong and right sphere and why isnt' that being questioned?
 
Last edited:
What happens to the real murderer in your scenario? If you tell the truth he may be found and prevented from future crimes. If you lie he goes free. I would prefer to indirectly free the rapist, especially since it seems impossible that I could know with certainty that he was guilty.
 
Easy....you are sitting back doing nothing and letting an innocent person get convicted. That is just as disgusting of an act as the person who rapes a child.

He is not innocent, and even if he was you can not compare it to rape.

It really saddens me that people like you exists.
 
Back
Top Bottom