[| I, CWAS |]

While there is a huge grey area in which to consider it a crime, I have never grasped how theoretically in the [American] legal system one can be charged with CN.

An example:

Criminal Holds a gun to the head of party B
Criminal demands party B, kill party C
Using Free will (?) party B does indeed kill party C.

Now the conspicuous answer is that party B did not act within his/her means to prevent the death of party C, so that is Culpable Negligence (possibly), however party B cannot reasonably, in my opinion, be considered a party acting out of blatent disregard for the life another.

To remix the above the point:

Criminal holds a gun to the head of party B
Criminal says unless party B kills Party C, parties D-Z will be killed, but party B will live.
Party B refuses to kill party C, thereby leading to the death of D-Z

I would say the latter is closer, but still a stretch, imo.

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Criminal holds a gun to the head of party B
Criminal says unless party B kills Party C, parties D-Z will be killed, but party B will live.
Party B refuses to kill party C, thereby leading to the death of D-Z

Party B in this case did not do anything wrong.

The deaths of Parties D-Z wasn't B's fault. B refused to kill C (understandable), so the criminal (A) killed D-Z. I don't see how that is in any way, shape or form, the fault of party B. As far as I'm concerned, party B acted accordingly.

Only party A is guilty.

It's 2AM, I will stop talking now.

[| I, CWAS |]

The deaths of Parties D-Z wasn't B's fault. B refused to kill C (understandable), so the criminal (A) killed D-Z. I don't see how that is in any way, shape or form, the fault of party B. As far as I'm concerned, party B acted accordingly.

I would agree, but under good samaritan laws the issue is not so clear cut. In fact under any non-rationally egoistic legal system, party B would be at fault.

[wonder cow]

I would agree, but under good samaritan laws the issue is not so clear cut. In fact under any non-rationally egoistic legal system, party B would be at fault.

I think CWAS, that the type of conditions you illustrate are an exception.

It is similar to cannibalism not being prosecutable under certain extreme conditions. (provided the one who is eaten was already dead)

What was the case with the shipwrecked men on a lifeboat in the 18th century I believe? I think it was a British incident. Actually, I think the men who participated were hung.

[| I, CWAS |]

I think CWAS, that the type of conditions you illustrate are an exception.

which exception, being at guilty or innocent?

[wonder cow]

which exception, being at guilty or innocent?

Meaning if someone forces you to kill someone else, if in fact you truly believe that they will kill you, then you would be innocent.

[| I, CWAS |]

Meaning if someone forces you to kill someone else, if in fact you truly believe that they will kill you, then you would be innocent.

Doesn't this degrade the act in favor of belief? If you believed the guy was just kidding, and he wasn' then you would be dead, however the emotional mind and rational mind reason different, if he tosses a coin (fig.) and simply kills in order to engage in the safest option, is he guilty?

[wonder cow]

Doesn't this degrade the act in favor of belief?

I think it would have to be strictly a legal distinction. If the evidence shows that there is strong reason to suspect that the individual "felt" or "believed" he was going to die if he\she did not comply, then the person may not be charged, and if charged could be found innocent.

In this type of case, I think the burden of proof would realistically be on the defendant.

[| I, CWAS |]

If the evidence shows that there is strong reason to suspect that the individual "felt" or "believed" he was going to die if he\she did not comply, then the person may not be charged, and if charged could be found innocent.

Thing with this is, you can believe by praying that you can move mountains, however rationally know it might not be true. He may have believe he was under threat, but didn't feel it, or vice versa. Which would rank higher: Strict Belief or Strict Rational Assesment ?

[wonder cow]

Strict Belief or Strict Rational Assesment ?

It is true that rational assessment is superior.

But in a court, I don't think it would matter for this type of situation.

In other words, if someone points a water gun at a retard and tells him to off someone else, I think as long as it can be shown that he truly believed he was in danger of his life, whether true or not, then he stands a good chance of getting off.

There is a legal term for this type of thing, but I forget the name. It has to do with survival.

But there are situations, I think, where someone can be penalized for ignoring rationale. But I believe that life or death situations are considered special cases.

[norman the carpet]

What was the case with the shipwrecked men on a lifeboat in the 18th century I believe? I think it was a British incident. Actually, I think the men who participated were hung.

Dudley and Stephens - on necessity as a defence. But:

Held, that upon these facts, there was no proof of any such necessity as could justify the prisoners in killing the boy, and that they were guilty of murder.

http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_bqb14040.html

They weren't hanged though.

The point about necessity is that it's no defence to murder. There was an Engish case some years ago similar to the formulation in the original post where the defendant pleaded necessity that he had to kill someone else to save his own life (there were also issues of duress in there). But the court held that you couldn't lawfully kill another to save your own life in those circumstances (note - this is not self-defence which is a different form of general defence).

[| I, CWAS |]

defendant pleaded necessity that he had to kill someone else to save his own life (there were also issues of duress in there). But the court held that you couldn't lawfully kill another to save your own life in those circumstances (note - this is not self-defence which is a different form of general defence).

But what about saving the maximum amount of people? By not killing one, you were responsible for the deaths of more than one.

[norman the carpet]

But what about saving the maximum amount of people? By not killing one, you were responsible for the deaths of more than one.

Good point. It might sound a bit callous but I think the court took the view that if people died of thirst then that was a bit of bad luck but it happens in those circumstances. But that to kill in order to save oneself or others when there wasn't a situation of self-defence (which requires immediacy rather than the longer term danger that thirst or starvation offers) was at odd with the law as it existed then.

In the case at hand (Dudley and Stephens) there was huge public support for an aquittal but it wasn't to be, the law had to be upheld. However as I mentioned, the convicted men weren't hanged and from memory they served a reasonably nominal term of imprisonment (I think it was a year).