Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Difficult Hypotheticals

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 11:43:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:52:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. This one is difficult and the only two choices are to either punish them both or punish neither of them. Since one of them killed a person, it makes no logical sense to not punish any of them since this would lead to a huge slippery slope in which one could commit as many crimes as they want without any fear of reprehension. The only other choice is to punish them both. However, in prison, I would assume that the one that did not commit the act would get much better treatment and food than the other.

2. Depends on whether the job contract that the employee signed with the employer makes him legally obligated to save all drowning victims. Also, AIDS isn't transmitted through saliva.

3. It would be rape because the actual act would not be consensual.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Jellyfish
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:34:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Wow, that really is tough. I have no idea.

2. Easy, mouth to mouth has been proven ineffective so it is no longer used. Problem averted.

3. No. He was not knowingly committing a crime. To his knowledge, she was concentual. Besides that, she could have contacted him saying "The deal is off." or "Let's make a safe word." and then said the safe word.
All I got is nothing but a little bit of love
Gonna give it to the people then they'll see
Then they'll see
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:07:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the first one you can give both twins a lighter sentence, and then compensate the innocent twin like you would with any wrongful conviction.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 11:43:51 PM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?:

Hmmm... tough one. I'll have to get back at you.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?:

The law protects First Responders from having to give CPR without barrier devices. They are legally allowed not to render care if the situation is reasonably unsafe.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?:

Not really enough information here. This one would have to go down to the most miniscule detail in order to prove innocence or culpability.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:09:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 11:43:51 PM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Guilty, accessory to assault- aiding and abeting

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Not guilty, most organizations provide barriers or BVM devices. In addition, safety for the rescuer as first priority is taught in all CPR classes. Compressions-only CPR is being taught now for lay people.

Why was he in a public pool with sores anyway??

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Not guilty, she was irresponsible and has to deal with the consequences.