Consider this hypothetical scenario. Bob has taken his four-wheel-drive Jeep out into the desert to explore on a hot sunny Sunday. But his two cousins want to see him dead. Mary has put poison in Bob’s five-gallon canteen. Steve, not knowing of Mary's plans, has put a very small hole in the canteen. Bob’s car breaks down. He’s getting hot and thirsty. His cell phone doesn’t work because he forgot to recharge it. He goes to get some water and finds the canteen empty. Then Bob dies. Overcome by guilt later in the year, both Mary and Steve confess. Who do you think should be blamed for causing Bob’s death?
Legally : Intent and execution are primary reasons , based on that both are liable . Remorse and regret is important yet value for life is an existential philosophy .
Both of them with equally distributed responsibility, I think, Right?
Emad
This is a wonderful question and I follow that with my greetings
The state can argue that bot are guilty based on means, motive, and opportunity which both of them fulfill the requirements for a crime.
In terms of Mary, the chemical analysis of the canteen will show that the poison was present but the autopsy will reveal that that was not the true cause of death. The defense will argue that while there was poison in the canteen it was not the true cause of death and as Lewis said a likely outcome is that she is found guilty of attempted murder.
For Steve, the state will have a bigger trouble in a conviction because the whole in the canteen does not prove the motive to kill but instead it may be argued that it was a practical joke. If he confessed then the defense might move that it was out of guilt that he misrepresented his motives. The defense may also argue that putting a whole in a canteen is not the primary cause of death but that it was dehydration and it was only one of the many factors of which led to the demise of Bob. If he is found guilty it might provide precedent that if you do not charge Bobs phone then that person is also guilty, or if the car was not serviced correctly the mechanic may also be guilty. One likely outcome of this argumentation is also attempted murder.
Undoubtedly, as Nada argues, Bob is guilty of not having taken all the precautions needed to face a desert trip. But so as things went, the guilty one is Stive. There is no evidence of the effectiveness of poison. Perhaps the poison dose was not enough to kill a man or maybe Bob was immune to that poison or maybe the rescuers would have arrived before death for poisoning. So Mary is guilty just of attempted murder as Cecilia claims.
Both cousins are guilty in the sense that the two want Bob to die
But the law is only going to punish Steve, because by drilling the canteen is the culprit that there is no water for Bob to drink. As she did not drink the poisoned water, Mary can only be guilty of attempted murder.
Ambos primos son culpables en el sentido de que los dos quieren que Bob muera
Pero la Ley solo va a castigar a Steve, ya que al agujerear la cantina es el culpable de que no haya agua para que Bob la pueda beber. Como no bebió el agua envenenada, Mary solo puede ser culpable de intento de asesinato.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics