Jump to content

The Hogman question.


Frustration

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Rg2045 said:

1) you are miss interpreting my reasoning on purpose it feels, 

2) so an invading army is coming, is the king supposed to do nothing to protect his people? To reassure them? To make them feel safe?  Or is it to judge to see if the armies intentions are just or righteous? 

3) do you believe that there is innocents in our prisons today? Do you believe innocent people have been killed by this legal system? Is that’s true then even “innocent till proven guilty” is a failing. Wouldn’t “only the truly guilty are punished” be a better option? 
 

 

Oh I definitely agree with this. I’m just putting myself into this time period, where harsh punishment needed to be made because that’s what was expected. Asking what would you do And then preaching modern laws seems so flimsy, people forgo punishment instead of finding a middle ground to make sure that the people who did do it gets punished. 

1.  You said make the people feel safe not be safe.  How exactly did I miss interpret that ? If all you care about is letting people feel safe then why not add 3 more innocent lives lost. It not like you care about justice anyway so it doesn't matter if the men who died actually committed the crime so long as the end result is people feel safe. 

2.  I fail to see what an invading army Has anything to do with The king's responsibility as a judge. Yes a king  Is supposed to organize the army in defense of the people  But this is nothing to do with how king should rule. And even if it did I don't see how it's related to making people feel safe.   If there is an invading army people are going to feel unsafe regardless what the king does. 

 

3.  Yes Sometimes innocents are punished even though we try, but there is a difference between try and failing and not trying at all. There is a difference between some one getting injured in a factory that follows the safety codes and in one that dose not.  If you don't understand that then you have missed one of the central themes of the stormlight archive journey befor destination. 

 

4. Which is more likely to make the people feel unsafe three criminals loose or a king who cares not for the difference between innocent and guilty?

Edited by bmcclure7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerfier said:

I guess you are not good at math. You have not a 25% chance. You have a 1/24.

46 minutes ago, Rg2045 said:

How is that possible? 4 people, 1 innocent, 1/4 chance to pick the right person. So how in roshar do you get 1/24? 

I can see him maybe thinking of it as a series of choices in selecting who dies (1/4)(1/3)(1/2) = (1/24), but the correct math for that would be (3/4)(2/3)(1/2) as we're looking for the odds of survival - its still (1/4)

Edited by Anomander Rake
posted early, had to redo comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rg2045 said:

2) so an invading army is coming, is the king supposed to do nothing to protect his people? To reassure them? To make them feel safe?  Or is it to judge to see if the armies intentions are just or righteous? 

That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

1 hour ago, Rg2045 said:

Oh I definitely agree with this. I’m just putting myself into this time period, where harsh punishment needed to be made because that’s what was expected. Asking what would you do And then preaching modern laws seems so flimsy, people forgo punishment instead of finding a middle ground to make sure that the people who did do it gets punished. 

Just because it's a modern belief doesn't mean that it's wrong. Nor does it mean Roshar hasn't developed the same justice framework at some point.

Also please don't double post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that came to mind is the fact that he is a ruler and not just a judge. If he we just a judge, then his decision would be much easier because it is his sole responsibility to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. 

But when you take into account that he is also in charge of protecting the members of the town it gets trickier. You then really have to decide whether you are willing to kill one to probably save many, or protect the one at the possible loss of others. 

Some people might think that imprisoning all four of them is a better solution because at least then the innocent man isn't killed. There are two problems I have with this though. First, you are still judging an innocent man as if he we guilty, and changing his life for the worse. Another problem that could result from simply imprisoning them is that you would then most likely have to imprison all other future murderers. People might be more willing to kill if they know they will only be going to prison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ultimately a "for the greater good" issue. It might seem innocuous but being willing to kill the innocent to punish the guilty shows that you care more for punishment than justice.

Your effectively committing a murder by killing the innocent person, you're just protected by the backing of a base of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StanLemon said:

This is ultimately a "for the greater good" issue. It might seem innocuous but being willing to kill the innocent to punish the guilty shows that you care more for punishment than justice.

Your effectively committing a murder by killing the innocent person, you're just protected by the backing of a base of power. 

I hadn't thought of that but you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rg2045 said:

How is that possible? 4 people, 1 innocent, 1/4 chance to pick the right person. So how in roshar do you get 1/24? 

More like, if 1 person in a group of 4 is guilty (I think is what you meant), the odds of you randomly picking one of them and that person being the guilty one is 1/4.

I think Jerfier was confusing this with the number of possible ways to order the four people: 4x3x2x1. That doesn't matter here because all the innocent people are equally innocent; you don't have to correctly categorize the four as Innocent1 (Totally Innocent), Innocent2 (Rather Innocent), Innocent3 (Barely/Technically Innocent), and Guilty (Not Innocent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

1.  You said make the people feel safe not be safe.  How exactly did I miss interpret that ? If all you care about is letting people feel safe then why not add 3 more innocent lives lost. It not like you care about justice anyway so it doesn't matter if the men who died actually committed the crime so long as the end result is people feel safe. 

2.  I fail to see what an invading army Has anything to do with The king's responsibility as a judge. Yes a king  Is supposed to organize the army in defense of the people  But this is nothing to do with how king should rule. And even if it did I don't see how it's related to making people feel safe.   If there is an invading army people are going to feel unsafe regardless what the king does. 

 

3.  Yes Sometimes innocents are punished even though we try, but there is a difference between try and failing and not trying at all. There is a difference between some one getting injured in a factory that follows the safety codes and in one that dose not.  If you don't understand that then you have missed one of the central themes of the stormlight archive journey befor destination. 

 

4. Which is more likely to make the people feel unsafe three criminals loose or a king who cares not for the difference between innocent and guilty?

1) when administrating justice you don’t punish a man you know to be innocent, but in this case you know you are going to punish one but you don’t know who. So how would you punish an innocent? If you say we simply don’t then you’ll have to unkill/release every man that said he didn’t do it. Because there’s a chance right, a chance that they were innocent. A justice system will draw the line of innocent to guilty ratio. It could be 1/10 maybe 1/100 maybe even better odds. But despite this every system will have innocents or laws made to target groups of people. 
2)you said that a kings job is not to make the people feel safe. It is a kings job, as well as his job to judge. He can’t do one without the other

3)I do understand journey before destination, I understand trying. But this is a hypothetical situation that’s vastly unfair to the judge. If we had more information we can make a stronger case.

4)I’m sure three criminals, as the king would be protecting his good citizens. Now I don’t advocate kill all 4 I say enslave them or kill three wile putting the pressure on the almighty. But I also like the highstorm judging all 4 as well. 

8 hours ago, Experience said:

One thing that came to mind is the fact that he is a ruler and not just a judge. If he we just a judge, then his decision would be much easier because it is his sole responsibility to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. 

But when you take into account that he is also in charge of protecting the members of the town it gets trickier. You then really have to decide whether you are willing to kill one to probably save many, or protect the one at the possible loss of others. 

Some people might think that imprisoning all four of them is a better solution because at least then the innocent man isn't killed. There are two problems I have with this though. First, you are still judging an innocent man as if he we guilty, and changing his life for the worse. Another problem that could result from simply imprisoning them is that you would then most likely have to imprison all other future murderers. People might be more willing to kill if they know they will only be going to prison. 

Thank you for wording it in a less controversial way. It’s not just about this case but all cases in the future.

5 hours ago, Jerfier said:

I was making fun of people's lives being played with numbers. It's not math.

I’ll take your word on it but if it was a mistake I won’t attack you for it. 
also for sakes of argument. How about soldiers on the field? Arnt they numbers on a map ultimately? In a lose lose situation you have to trust the numbers for the best decision.

9 hours ago, Frustration said:

That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Just because it's a modern belief doesn't mean that it's wrong. Nor does it mean Roshar hasn't developed the same justice framework at some point.

Also please don't double post.

the invading army was a poor way to show that a king is not just a judge.
 

I don’t believe that our modern belief is right or wrong. It just is. And maybe roshar will but I’m talking within the confines of the scenario.

and sorry don’t know how to add a quote to an edit yet. Maybe an @ could work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rg2045 said:

1) when administrating justice you don’t punish a man you know to be innocent, but in this case you know you are going to punish one but you don’t know who. So how would you punish an innocent? If you say we simply don’t then you’ll have to unkill/release every man that said he didn’t do it. Because there’s a chance right, a chance that they were innocent. A justice system will draw the line of innocent to guilty ratio. It could be 1/10 maybe 1/100 maybe even better odds. But despite this every system will have innocents or laws made to target groups of people. 
2)you said that a kings job is not to make the people feel safe. It is a kings job, as well as his job to judge. He can’t do one without the other

3)I do understand journey before destination, I understand trying. But this is a hypothetical situation that’s vastly unfair to the judge. If we had more information we can make a stronger case.

4)I’m sure three criminals, as the king would be protecting his good citizens. Now I don’t advocate kill all 4 I say enslave them or kill three wile putting the pressure on the almighty. But I also like the highstorm judging all 4 as well. 

Thank you for wording it in a less controversial way. It’s not just about this case but all cases in the future.

I’ll take your word on it but if it was a mistake I won’t attack you for it. 
also for sakes of argument. How about soldiers on the field? Arnt they numbers on a map ultimately? In a lose lose situation you have to trust the numbers for the best decision.

the invading army was a poor way to show that a king is not just a judge.
 

I don’t believe that our modern belief is right or wrong. It just is. And maybe roshar will but I’m talking within the confines of the scenario.

and sorry don’t know how to add a quote to an edit yet. Maybe an @ could work 

1.  Obviously you shouldn't necessarily believe any suspects  Who claims to  Innocent obviously you look at the evidence since you care about Justice. If you found enough evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty then you convict him.  In this case though we do have reasonable doubt, we know for a fact that at least one of these men is innocent and based on the information we're given it could be any 1 of them so that means we have reasonable doubt for all of them. 

2.  The idea of a holy or sanctified lottery system to pick the innocent man is at least better than Taravangian's solution and arguably better then  Giving all of them life imprisonment.  That said I'm maintain that the most just solution is to let them go. 

 

Edited by bmcclure7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to let them all go.

If you judge them guilty, then the only certainty you have is that you have now created a system of murderers of the innocent and you are one of these perpetrators via a judgement where someone you know was innocent is either executed or indefinitely detained at your discretion. Why is the innocent being condemned worth less than that of the innocent who was first murdered? 

There is also something to be said that we are witnessing a story of redemption with a murderous butcher like Dalinar being reformed, and so it seems somewhat vindictive to take a retributive approach as if he is the one exception to the rule. People can grow and be better. Even people who've killed. Why not start from that principle with these three hogmen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Proletariat said:

You have to let them all go.

If you judge them guilty, then the only certainty you have is that you have now created a system of murderers of the innocent and you are one of these perpetrators via a judgement where someone you know was innocent is either executed or indefinitely detained at your discretion. Why is the innocent being condemned worth less than that of the innocent who was first murdered? 

There is also something to be said that we are witnessing a story of redemption with a murderous butcher like Dalinar being reformed, and so it seems somewhat vindictive to take a retributive approach as if he is the one exception to the rule. People can grow and be better. Even people who've killed. Why not start from that principle with these three hogmen?

On the other side of the coin, if you let them all go, you've created a system where murders go unpunished. Now future murderers know that so long as they hide their actions well, they can get away with killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nameless said:

On the other side of the coin, if you let them all go, you've created a system where murders go unpunished. Now future murderers know that so long as they hide their actions well, they can get away with killing.

That was the system already, if the three hogman had simply finished the firt one off before anyone else got there no one would have known it was them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Frustration said:

That was the system already, if the three hogman had simply finished the firt one off before anyone else got there no one would have known it was them.

Yeah, but what message does it send for the lord to know there are three murderers walking loose, and do nothing about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Frustration said:

So because it looks bad otherwise you would punish an innocent man?

Looks bad? It is bad. The reason we punish people for crime is to reduce crime. If we don't punish the hogmen for their crimes what's to stop them from killing again? What's to stop others from seeing them and thinking they can get away with it too? I would imprison all of them, because to do otherwise would leave murderers unpunished. Perhaps in time I can get the three guilty to confess, or let them out on good behavior, or find some evidence exonerating one of the hogmen, but to let them all free is to invite more crime. The chances of one of the three hogmen killing again or someone else seeing their lack of punishment and killing because of it are too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nameless said:

Looks bad? It is bad. The reason we punish people for crime is to reduce crime. If we don't punish the hogmen for their crimes what's to stop them from killing again? What's to stop others from seeing them and thinking they can get away with it too? I would imprison all of them, because to do otherwise would leave murderers unpunished. Perhaps in time I can get the three guilty to confess, or let them out on good behavior, or find some evidence exonerating one of the hogmen, but to let them all free is to invite more crime. The chances of one of the three hogmen killing again or someone else seeing their lack of punishment and killing because of it are too high.

Our duty is not to punish the guilty but to protect the innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Our duty is not to punish the guilty but to protect the innocent.

That works for comic books, but in a world filled with man eating tigers, someone must hunt and kill the tigers. Both punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent need to be done to have a functioning society. In fact, it is impossible to truly protect the innocent without punishing the guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Frustration said:

It feels like the only reason to do either of these is to look good to the public.

Oh definitely, you have to inspire hope in a unfair situation. If you can make people feel safe they will trust you to make the next judgment as well.

12 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

1.  Obviously you shouldn't necessarily believe any suspects  Who claims to  Innocent obviously you look at the evidence since you care about Justice. If you found enough evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty then you convict him.  In this case though we do have reasonable doubt, we know for a fact that at least one of these men is innocent and based on the information we're given it could be any 1 of them so that means we have reasonable doubt for all of them. 

2.  The idea of a holy or sanctified lottery system to pick the innocent man is at least better than Taravangian's solution and arguably better then  Giving all of them life imprisonment.  That said I'm maintain that the most just solution is to let them go. 

 

I can respect that you feel this way. It’s a moral code that’s taught in schools and even universities with a certain bias. And wile I understand this, I have to put myself into this situation completely with a town or city thats depending upon me to make impossible  calls thats as fair as possible to the people and to the victim. I can’t let them go unpunished. And I don’t want to kill/punish the innocent. But I have to, for peace. 
 

p.s. it’s nice to have some people on/near my side of the debate. For a moment I thought that I had to play “devils advocate” to the popular opinion by myself 

Edited by Rg2045
Forgot to add something
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nameless said:

Which I would be doing. I am preventing future crimes by ensuring that those that commit them are punished.

So if a murder is commited and you have no idea who did it you would punish the whole town just to ensure you punished the guilty?

2 hours ago, Master Silver said:

That works for comic books, but in a world filled with man eating tigers, someone must hunt and kill the tigers. Both punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent need to be done to have a functioning society. In fact, it is impossible to truly protect the innocent without punishing the guilty.

Yes, but the primary goal is protecting the innocent, that means you cannot under any circumstance punish the innocent.

1 hour ago, Rg2045 said:

Oh definitely, you have to inspire hope in a unfair situation. If you can make people feel safe they will trust you to make the next judgment as well.

That seems designed to keep you in power, rather than doing what is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...