Here's another moral/ethical dilemma for you. This comes from Beauty and the Beast and is shocking because it doesn't have to do with issues of bestiality and also, that this show could provide any moral conundrum of any report.

A man is on trial for killing his son. An indisputable physical abuser it is known that he beat his wife and his children, but the elder child maintains he was with her during the time the crime was committed. The wife is unable to testify after she breaks down on the stand. All she gets out is that she originally lied to the cops when she told them her husband had been gone. We the viewer know this man is guilty, but putting myself in the place of the juror, is there reasonable doubt there?

The credibility of the elder child is suspect after it is revealed that she too was physically abused by her father and that she lied when asked previously if she knew he was abusive to his wife and son. That lack of credibility might be enough not to believe her when she maintains that he was with her all night, but interpreted another way it might also be stronger proof that she was. It all depends if she is scared of her father or seeking revenge. Because of the way the character was portrayed I didn't get the impression (even though I knew I was supposed to) that she was clinging desperately to an obvious lie. The worst part was in the closing statements our heroine, also the prosecuting attorney, asked the jury to ignore the lack of evidence in the case and decide with their hearts what they knew to be "true".

It's entirely possible, and when I say entirely possible what I mean is it is true, that if this show were better written many of these issues wouldn't come up. You would know more obviously the girl was a victim and clinging to a lie, you would have a much better case for the defense that didn't rely completely on the emotions of the jury. But the show is what it is and I am left asking the question, do we want a jury to decide a murder case based on what they "know to be true" or on what the evidence shows to be true? I am very hesitant to put my justice system in the hands of pure emotion.

Emotion isn't bad. Emotion plays in part with context and you have to have more than logical deduction to understand how context plays into human interaction. However, courts are supposed to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, if someone is innocent or guilty and while you might "know" someone is guilty is there still a reasonable doubt that you might be wrong? How often are we so sure we know what we know only to be proven wrong? There are countless times in my life that I have been sure I was correct and when challenged I have sought out the answer via internet or encyclopedia, not because I had to prove I was right, but because if what I believed so whole-heartedly was wrong I really needed to fix myself. The stakes are lower in those situations, but isn't that all the more indicative of how we should be extra careful when in court rooms?

Our need to mete out "justice" has led to us being one of a handful of countries in the world that administers the death penalty to children, or adults for crimes they committed while under fifteen. We try nine year olds as adults for certain crimes. We keep such illustrious company as Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, the very countries we hold up as examples of what not to do as we continue fighting this ridiculous war. That our criminal justice system is broken isn't my point here--I think that one is fairly obvious. My point, rather, is what do you do as a juror in this situation. Is it better to go with what you know to be true and risk putting an innocent man in jail, or go only with the evidence and risk letting a wife-beating, child-abuser free? Blackstone is credited with saying that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man.

Is that true? And if so is there a cap on guilty men that should go free before we risk imprisonment of one innocent? Even if there isn't if we agree with the 10:1 ratio we are stating that good of the one outweighs the good of the many. That is, assuming the guilty men continue doing illegal things or even accounting for the victims of whatever crimes the guilty committed, we are placing the good the unjustly accused innocent above all of that. I should probably mention at this point I wouldn't put a cap on my guilty number as I would always error on the side of the innocent--at least I think I would.

And so I'm back to my conundrum. The only way to prevent putting an innocent man in jail is too look at the evidence and so, even if I'm sure the man is guilty, the reasonable doubt tells me I must let him go. But sometimes the evidence, as gathered and presented by human beings, is flawed and so only looking at that might also result in the conviction of an innocent. There doesn't seem to be, therefore, an answer.

What is that crap? I hate questions without answers. That's not true, I love them, but usually I can ferret out some answer, at least for myself. Here, as with last time, I have no idea how it should be done.

I should remark on the previous post that the best line of the show was when the judge told the man that his reparations would be legal not equitable and she would never order a woman to have an abortion. I think she was right and I think it true that a woman should be convicted for the misuse of sperm (or whatever we want to label it) as I also want to clarify that I don't believe the court should order abortions.

The wheels in my head go round and round. Perhaps I will present some of these issues to my students to sharpen their skills of cognition. But I can already see at least one of their answers: throw his ass in jail. Their justice is swift and without mercy. I would feel better about that if I didn't know that many of them, if given the chance, would shoot a kid to ensure a utopia.

Ah the youth of our country.