Innocent or Guilty?

The Overcrowded Lifeboat

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action, charged with premeditated first-degree murder.

If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

COULD A MOD DELETE THIS POST? -- I forgot the poll. Thank you very much.

Tried to do another and the system wouldn't let me duplicate my post. Could someone add the poll then?

Is the captain:

Innocent
Guilty

Sorry.

Poll added.

I don't think the poll choices are up to the question. I wouldn't pick either one. He's responsible; the question is, is he justified or not? It's not, to me, a question of guilt or innocence.

In any case, the idea that everyone dying being more just and thus more acceptable is silly talk. Would be no different than if someone had to go to the lower decks to plug a hole in order to save everyone else, knowing that whoever did so would drown. Should the captain not give that order, because it would be "unfair"?

Or, put another way, one of the really stupid arguments I've seen against missile defense is that it wouldn't be possible to stop every warhead, therefore, none should be stopped, because why should some people get to live when others will die?

This is a hard call.

On the one hand, we'll never know for certain if the boat would have sank thus overloaded. However, the Captain was presumably the most experienced seaman on hand and in his judgement it would have. It is not unreasonable to assume that he was correct, and if nothing had been done then all would have died instead of some being saved.

Triage is a medical term. It is used in situations where the number of injured/sick persons exceeds the immediate medical capacity to treat them. Those who need treatment immediately to live, but who are likely to survive if they recieve immediate treatment, are taken first. Those who will survive if their treatment is delayed are set to one side; those likely to die regardless of treatment are also set aside. In some extreme cases, the latter group is simply set aside to die.

This situation is very similar.

One way of looking at it is that the Captain murdered X number of people. Another way of looking at it is that EVERYONE was going to die, and by making a hard decision the Captain saved Y number of people who would not have lived otherwise.

At sea, the Captain is "master under God". Legally, the opinions of the lifeboat castaways is irrelevant as the Captain was legally in command, and legally responsible for everything that happened. A ship is not a democracy; that goes double for a lifeboat in a survival situation.


I am inclined to be sympathetic to the Captain. I would however, prefer more details before making a final judgement, such as whether women and children were forced overboard. Is there a link to this story?

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Harshaw said:

I don't think the poll choices are up to the question. I wouldn't pick either one. He's responsible; the question is, is he justified or not? It's not, to me, a question of guilt or innocence.

In any case, the idea that everyone dying being more just and thus more acceptable is silly talk. Would be no different than if someone had to go to the lower decks to plug a hole in order to save everyone else, knowing that whoever did so would drown. Should the captain not give that order, because it would be "unfair"?

Or, put another way, one of the really stupid arguments I've seen against missile defense is that it wouldn't be possible to stop every warhead, therefore, none should be stopped, because why should some people get to live when others will die?

Click to expand...

I should have worded the poll: Guilty / Not Guilty -- since there's no finding of "innocent" in a courtroom.

In the scenerio I painted (actually, someone else painted it), the choice is clear-cut. When a DA brings charges of First Degree Murder, the jury has two choices. Guilty / Not Guilty.

Moral dilemas are just that. Fortunately, I've never been called upon to make one of this magnitude. Our leaders, on the other hand, are forced to make them all the time.

Thanks for responding, Harshaw.

I go with not guilty. It is a terrible choice to have to make, but in the end a just one. Whenever there is a problem where the ends do not meet, you save what you can and sacrifice what you have to. Ultimately, this is the sort of thing that responsibility is all about.

Justice is a great ideal and something we should always strive for (and technically, I see justice as the captain doing nothing as opposed to causing harm), and we should always behave by those ideals when we can. However, we must always accept necessity and the constraints we find ourselves in. To do otherwise is to let a greater harm happen in the name of an ideal. Sometimes the worst thing we can ever do is nothing and the best thing we can ever do is cause harm, if it is in the service of a greater good.

I think it's kind of like self defense. It was necessary to "kill" those who were in the way of the other's surviving.
It would be better in a case like that if people volunteered to sacrifice their own lives for others. I guess the Captain was needed, otherwise he should have sacrificed his own life.
I voted innocent anyway.
Is this a hypothetical case?

Goshin said:

Is there a link to this story?

Click to expand...

I actually found the scenerio presented as a moral dilema -- not a true story. But since you asked, I googled and found this: Alexander Holmes Trial: 1842 - Holmes Tried For Manslaughter - William, Night, Lifeboat, Passengers, Captain, and Rhodes

You'll see he was charged with manslaughter; found guilty; sentenced to 6 months and a $20 fine.

Gardener said:

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Click to expand...

On'tda etgay ittay.

megaprogman said:

I go with not guilty. It is a terrible choice to have to make, but
in the end a just one. Whenever there is a problem where the ends do not meet, you save what you can and sacrifice what you have to.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, Mega.

Gardener said:

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Click to expand...

Oh!! Thank you, Google.

Never heard of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks, Gardner.

MaggieD said:

On'tda etgay ittay.

.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's a well-known legal term.

THe definition of such (as is the thrust of any argument I might produce) is just a click away.

MaggieD said:

Oh!! Thank you, Google.

Never heard of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks, Gardner.

Click to expand...

Oops -- I didn't see this response until after I submitted mine!

Gardener said:

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

If you post anything in a language other than English, you are supposed to post the translation in English as well, please.

Also, my Latin isn't so hot... :mrgreen:

But mens rea has a number of levels. He'd have the intent to put someone over the side knowing that they'd drown; while it's not necessarily an intent to murder, it may well be found to be intent to kill.

Gardener said:

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Click to expand...

Would say the Captain is innocent. (But Gardner is guilty for "talking funny"....)



.

Goshin said:

Also, my Latin isn't so hot... :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

You just haven't met the right Latin, that's all, Goshin.

Thanks for reminder, though. I knew I was being bad, and am guilty as charged.

Cole said:

Would say the Captain is innocent. (But Gardner is guilty for "talking funny"....)



.

Click to expand...

Pig latin was needed, not real latin.

Legally, he's probably guilty...but I think most judges/juries would push for the lightest sentence possible, and maybe charge him with a lesser crime than murder. There was a similar case in the 1800s in the US involving a shipwrecked crew of a ship. They had no food, so four of the crew members killed and ate the fifth member, who was the weakest. They were convicted of murder, but served only about six months in jail due to the circumstances.

All choices are wrong. The correct choice is to advise passengers of the situation and allow people to volunteer to jump over board. Even then they may survive if they remain close to the boat using ropes and life savers until the storm passes.

ksu_aviator said:

All choices are wrong. The correct choice is to advise passengers of the situation and allow people to volunteer to jump over board. Even then they may survive if they remain close to the boat using ropes and life savers until the storm passes.

Click to expand...

Okay. Two selfless saints jump overboard. The other 28 say "screw that!" and remain in the boat. Boat sinks in the storm. All die. No one is saved.

Goshin said:

Okay. Two selfless saints jump overboard. The other 28 say "screw that!" and remain in the boat. Boat sinks in the storm. All die. No one is saved.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the outcome was "fair". Which is really what matters.....



.

megaprogman said:

I go with not guilty. It is a terrible choice to have to make, but in the end a just one. Whenever there is a problem where the ends do not meet, you save what you can and sacrifice what you have to. Ultimately, this is the sort of thing that responsibility is all about.

Justice is a great ideal and something we should always strive for (and technically, I see justice as the captain doing nothing as opposed to causing harm), and we should always behave by those ideals when we can. However, we must always accept necessity and the constraints we find ourselves in. To do otherwise is to let a greater harm happen in the name of an ideal. Sometimes the worst thing we can ever do is nothing and the best thing we can ever do is cause harm, if it is in the service of a greater good.

Click to expand...

Yes. This. Especially the bolded parts.

You could say the same in so many situations.

1. Thousands of Americans have been killed in a surprise attack. We can do nothing and hope the aggressors do not attack us again; or we can go to war and risk the deaths of many, to end the threat.
(hint: this applies to Pearl Harbor as much as 9/11)


2. The nukes have flown/comet has struck/economy has collapsed catastrophically/whatever.... civilization has fallen. You have enough food put away to keep your family alive until you can get some crops growing, but only just enough. Your neighbors have no food put away, and come begging. If you share with them, your family AND theirs will run out of food before any crops can grow, and everyone will starve... or you can turn them away and save what you can (your own).


3. Someone you love has become a drug addict, and a criminal, and a danger to everyone around them. Let's say it is your spouse, and you have children. They won't go to rehab. They're stealing from the neighbors. Do you make the hard decision and turn the over to the police, knowing they will go to prison, or let them ruin the lives of everyone in the family including the children?


4. You're a State governor. There is a bill in front of your desk about water purity; the idea is to reduce the trace levels of arsenic in drinking water to virtually nothing. Proponents claim that some people are more sensitive to trace levels of arsenic in water than others, and that this bill might save ten people every year from sickness and possibly death. Those opposed say it will cost ten billion dollars your state doesn't have, in a time when the budget is stretched to the limit, your state's debt is high, and the economy is weak; if you raise taxes, your state's fragile economy may collapse. A million people could lose their jobs. Is it worth risking a million jobs to save ten people from illness or death?

I think if he was so concerned about the survival of everyone he should have jumped out to his death.

WeAreReborn said:

I think if he was so concerned about the survival of everyone he should have jumped out to his death.

Click to expand...

Depriving the lifeboat of it's most experienced seaman, and also of its clear and obvious leader, possibly resulting in a conflict over who is the new head man.... and conflict over leadership in a "lifeboat situation" can be fatal.

:no:

Gardener said:

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Click to expand...

care to tell us what the hell that means

EDIT: nevermind I had to look it up on Bing: Latin: conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.


Anyhew, without 100% certainty that the storm was going to hit them..... it was premature to push these people off the boat to their deaths. Without the proper data I cant really make a judgement but from what I read I would say the Captain made a mistake.