Would you commit a felony in this situation?

Here’s the scenario: You were falsely convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. It’s a given that barring escape you will die in prison. One day you have an opportunity to escape. It’s a given that if you choose to escape you will get away with it, live just as long, and your life will be of much higher quality than you had in prison. Escaping prison is a felony even if you’re innocent of the crime that put you there. Do you escape?

Follow-up questions to be explained:

If you chose to stay in prison, why?

If someone were caught and convicted for escaping and then DNA testing led to a pardon for the original crime, but the escape conviction (and only the escape conviction) kept them in prison, would you feel they were unjustly imprisoned?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do I know approximately where the one-armed man is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of my favorite movie bits is in The Fugitive remake when the fugitive (Harrison Ford) yells to the chasing marshal (Tommy Lee Jones) “I didn’t do it!” and the marshal yells back “I don’t care!”

“Texas Inmate Attorney” came up as the Google link. How appropriate!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Definately.

If I were in for life I'd try to escape regardless of whether or not I was guilty.

Yes.

 

Not only do I escape but if a guard is between me and escaping I wouldn't think twice about killing the guard. As a matter of fact like Xerxes says it doesn't matter if I am guilty or not....If I think I can pull it off I stil try to escape.

Its funny I remember listening to an interview by an imate who was in prision for life and escaped for 20 days one time. When he was caught a major news station interviewed him and asked him why he tried. He was in his early 40's and he said, something to the effect of "a day week or month on the outside while still in my youth is worth an eternity in here." I forgot if his exact words and if he used day week or month.....but it doesn't matter cause the point seemed to be that no punishment short of death was going to be a deterient for this fella if he had a few days of freedom.

I used to work for the state and the adjacent buildings had police officers in them many who use to be jail guards (not prision so much) and I met a lot of ex imates and man if I couldn't write a book on what i have seen and heard from both of them in just a couple of short years.

It is just so unnatural to be caged...alot of those guys think of nothing but being on the outside..and they were just in jail.....if I were in prision I don't think I could think of anything else at all..at times......

 

Definitely.

 

Zanket:

Unequivocally YES. If indeed it's a 'given' that my life will be of 'much higher quality', then, I cannot think of any ratinoal reason to choose otherwise. By 'much higher quality of life', I would certainly include: that my original crime be cleared, and that the actual murderer be caught; that I be entitiled to have all rights back so that I can function normally like any other citizens; that I would not be convicted with the same crime (I don't know whether it's possible in the States). But without those options, I would think twice about it.

If I am not entitled to the above options, and if I happened to be, for instance, Black American and convicted of murder, I will probably stay provided that the consequences of escaping are to be much greater than that of staying.

This is probably the key question of all: This enquires the degree to which how much you can trust the society you live in, with its particular judiciary system. Previously I have remarked that the pure limitation of human freedom is determined by the laws (de fact laws included [perhaps more than the actual laws]) of a nation. Given that the person who is convicted for escaping is well aware of the criminal system of the nation he lives, I highly doubt the person would feel either 'unjust' or 'just' about the consequences he gets (i.e., of imprisonment for escaping).

For instance, I have heard that, if you are imprisoned in America, you would be raped by your fellow immates. Given that situation as a de facto rule of the criminal system in America, you would not probably interpret your feeling (of being raped in prions) in terms of 'just' or 'unjust' had you indeed been raped by your fellow inmates (regardless of the reason why you are, to begin with, in prison). That is, if you are fully capable of assuming the obvious consequences of your action within the given criminal system, you probably don't feel any 'emotions' towards however concequences you get.

So I would have two diffrent answers to the last question: If I were in the States and imprisoned for escaping (while you are innocent for whatever the innitial crime), I would not feel anything (because I can fully assume that the US criminal system shall not 'recognise' me as innocent); On the other hand, if I were in Norway and imprisoned for mere escaping, I would certainly feel 'unjust', and that I will appeal to the authority for being treated 'unjustly' (given that I have a great deal of faith in Norwegian judicial system, in that the authority would/should 'recognise' me as innocent).

Zanket - I suggest that you compare criminal laws between Nothern Euro and the States; you will find out that the latter's are much severe than that of former, and that the former's are much more 'humane' than that of latter.

One of the most important life axioms that my American friend has told me is: Don't get caught

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting answers, teguy. Yeah the commonness of rape in US prisons is a crime in itself. I don't call it the injustice system for nothing.

My goal here is to see if my thinking in this thread was on the right track:

 

Zanket:

By the way, when you posted this thread, it caught my attention because of the similarity to the now-cesspooled thread as you mentioned above (Though I personally don't understand as to why it was closed).

Accordingly, I have given very similar answers in both cases. Perhaps one of the reasons why I find your opinion justifiable in the now-cesspooled thread is because - thanks to my non-American origin - I can compare the States' (in)justie system to that of other developed nations (particulary of Northern Euro). In that, I can, mind you, definitively say that States' criminal system is utterly inhumane and degrading to say the least. That's not to say that other developed nations' criminal system is devoid of injustice, but in the relative sense, do I find the US's system particulaly unjustifiable.

But the difficulty (to justify your position) here is that you are not just dealing with judicial system as such in the States, but it encompasses the entire super-structure of the United States; her structure (e.g., judicial system, etc) is merely a product of super-structure (ideology, culture, value system, etc).

According to my theory, whatever the very initial foundation of a nation determines the charactor of a nation virtually forever. In that - provided that the US's foundation is freedom (here, I am referring to that of 'social-mobility' in the pure economic sense alone as I don't find any other notion of freedom practically abiding in the States) - inevitably, 'exploitaton' of any sort is to be the decisive goal (i.e., super-structure) of America. On the contrary, for instance, however Germany or Japan might now fashion so-called Anglo-Saxon liberal democracy in her face-value, those nations are still by and large 'authoritarian' in their de facto social stucture and in people's ideology (they still have 'class consciousness' while it is non-existent in the states).

And those differences in people's ideology are clearly reflected upon how people think in the most abstract disciplines such as philosophy (or laws for that matter). Just to take the word "freedom" alone, the difference between Anglo-Saxon 'freedom' and the continental 'freedom' is clearly manifested: In the UK or US, freedom equals to merely economic/social freedom (e.g., Mills, Hobbs - or so-called English Utilitarianism); while the Continental notion of freedom supposes, with Hegel, et al, 'freedom of individual mind/spirit and it is very personal and self-reflective.

Let's face it, not many people in the States (esp, if you were born and raised in the States) are able to find and enquire about the possible flaw of the existing system as such; instead, the majoriy would blind-faithedly accept/suppose it as the default measurement by which all of their moral actions are measured. Given the unshakable framework of such a system, people get to think within the constraint of the framework alone. And if you go beyond it, as you have, you are labled as 'unacceptable'. Just look at the majority of the opnions posted in your now-cesspooled thread - their unshakable presupposition is that the criminal system is decisively 'right'. As a result, they only think within the given framework of the existing system. Also, in case if a person is from a more civilised nation and has had no direct experience with US's (in)justice system, probably the person would find your postion equally 'unjustifiable' provided their decisive measurement is 'more civilised' laws of their European nation -only after he experienced the US's judicial system, does he get to know the validity of your position (such as I did) in the dialectic sense.

The underlying principle of your former thread and that of the latter is essentially the same. But this time, you have got many of polar opposite answers. The reason why that is rests upon this sentence:

[bolds added]

Indeed, people are willing to break the law provided that - this is the tricky part - the law itself justifies the very breakage of the law. Not only does it justify the breakage of the law, but it also ensures the alleged-criminal's future circumstnaces by guranteeing and recognising his normal social status by means of laws (you see, all those 'options' I referred to in my previous post are not possible unless guranteed by laws, otherwise I won't have "highly quality of life"). It implies the fact that people are still thinking in terms of the framework of laws.

In any event, I still maintain that your thinking in both threads is on the right track.
best,

 

Hell yes I would escape, or at least try or die trying if I am going to die in there anyways what would I have too lose. like robotex said if there was a guard in my way he wouldn't be for long, amsterdam is not that far away LMAO...

 

you have nothing to lose, if you get caught again, then your no more screwed than before, in fact if i were in jail, i would be sure to do something so stupid or illegal that i at least deserve to be in prison.

if i escape then i immediately jump whatever border and run to a coutry where i will be harboured eg canada, cuba, iraq

 

lmfao 100% of the people here would escape in one way or another at least thats what the poll is saying

 

No doubt. The US would be different today had its Constitution been different from the beginning. Like the butterfly effect in chaos theory. A small change then could have developed into big differences by now.

Can you give an example of the difference?

I say that by doing nothing about a flaw they condone it. For instance, it is well known that rape is common in US prisons but I think many Americans believe that rape is a just punishment on top of the loss of freedom for an inmate. It’s an extra punishment.

What could a hit & stay driver expect to happen legally in a more civilized nation, that is significantly different than what typically happens in the US? Wouldn't their car be impounded without compensation during the investigation, just like in the US?

Isn’t that the same thing as an unjust or unfair law? It’s clear to a person that a law is unjust when they are punished for nothing they did wrong.

The way I see it is that the law is ever-evolving. To evolve it depends not only on voters and their representatives but also on lawbreakers, who sometimes effect sweeping changes. For example, Rosa Parks kicked off the civil rights movement here in the US when she refused to sit in the back of the bus as blacks were then required by law to do.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. A person can have a higher quality of life than in prison even if they are on the lamb on the outside. When a person breaks an unjust or unfair law without consequence they are technically on the run from the law.

 

Yes, but furthermore - By 'initial fundation of a nation' I meant not only her constitution/laws, but many other factors which contribute towards forming the constitution/laws, such as a nation's natural resources, topographical circumstances, climate, language, etc.

One's morality (or a collective morality of a nation) is a manifestation of various external factors I mentioned above, in that, reasons why people in the UK behave differently from the Germans are precisely due to their distinct, usually material/physical circumstnances.

There are many examples (both qualitiative and quantitative) to justify this. In 1845, for instance, when Karl Marx encapsulated the general distinctions between how Anglo-Saxons and the Germans perceive 'History', he said "The English. . . have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry." (from "German Ideology" -1845 by Karl Marx) [Italics added]

The notion of 'History' for the Germans, on the other hand, had been categorised in the realm of 'speculative philosophy' (like Hegel) rather than 'materialist conception of history' as in England. Marx (and Engels) in fact was the first one to abide by the materialist conception of history in Germany; before them, the notion of materialism was virtually non-existent in the academic descipline in Germany.

The decisive reason why the Germans had needed not to torlarate the materialist notion of history is due precisely to her abandant natural resources there. The UK, on the contrary, was not - and still isn't - a 'rich' nation in terms of natural resources. Thus it is more than plausable that the UK - rather than resoruce-rich-continentals - first underwent the industrial revolution, also she was the first to use her colonies for supporting the mainland economy (e.g., India, US, SW Asia, etc).

Now, given that the desperate material circumstances have been persistant thoughout the history of England, people, accordingly, think in terms of those material circumstances as the default condition against which everything is to be measured - including the notion of freedom.

The notion of happiness/pleasure is basically equivalent to that of freedom for the English: All those words presuppose the notion that one is content with his circumstnaces. But since her very default circustances are defined in terms of poor natural resources (food included) in the mateial sense of the word alone, she naturally tries to get rid of the shortcomings not by seeking solutions internally (for there isn't much resources there), instead, she will find it outside - by externalising them. This might be a trivial example but if you'd ask anyone in England what are the best food in the UK, people usually say 'Indian' of some sort. At any rate, freedom for the English people - given the desparate material/physical circumstances is contingent upon her material status.

Unlike the English obsession with material freedom, Hegelian notion of freedom supposes the advancement of individual mind through history, in that, unlike Marx, the economic factors of freedom are to be of secondary. In that, for Hegel, freedom as such isn't simply of material advancement (i.e., survival as its minimal requirment) but the essence of what was distinctively human. In this sense, freedom and material 'needs' are diametrically opposed. Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to live in nature or according to nature from the stand point of survival in the biological sense; rather, freedom begins only where nature ends. Human freedom emerges only when man is able to transcend his natural, animal existence, and to creat a new self 'for himself'. The emblematic starting point for this process of self-creation is the struggle to the death for pure prestige, etc. That is, 'recognition' - rather than survival - is to be the pinnacle of Hegel's notion of freedom.

Exactly. I have remarked before that the pure limitation of Human freedom is set by laws of a nation [de facto laws included]. If indeed the majority of (or at least many of) Americans think along this line, it confirms the notion that the degree of punishment is in proportion to the people's notion of what is a justifiable punishment. That is, if your account of what 'many Americans believe' is ture (which I think it is), American people are preoccupied by the notion of revenge/vengeance rather than a respect for laws.

Zanket, you have written this

in this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16955&page=1&pp=20

Now, I beleive our shared goal is not of punishment of a rapist, but of a respect for laws, but the means by which to achieve the supposedly same goal differ significantly between you and I. In my opinion, your proposal of "a life in prison without the possibility of parole" is in fact too much of a price to pay, even (or especially) if your goal is that of a respect of laws. In fact, I am not sure wheather it is an appropriate/humane measure to have the rapist spend a life in prison without the possibility of parole if indeed your goal
is that of a respect of laws: In this case, I almost don't see any distinction beween your means and ends.

But, you see, I can assume the reason why you think this is a 'humane' option given that you are American. Like anything else, you always get to compare to what is worst; and what is worst is to be the absolute standard of your judgement. In America, you still have a death penalty I heard. Now, compare to the death penalty, I suppose 'a life in prison without the possibility of parole' might be more 'humane' - Hence, the pure limitation of Human freedom is set by laws of a nation.

I don't have a particular example of how a hit and stay driver gets treated in a more civilised nation (heh, I am leaving at 9:00am for mountain climbing tomorow at Mt. Washington, so pardon my lack of resource). But I think this would tell you how people in two nations think differently in accordance with their peculiar judicial systems:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article668885.ece

In Norway, a 13-year-prison-sentence is well adequate for a brutal teenage rapist provided that the goal of Norwegian criminal system is that of 'a respect for laws' rather than revenge/vengeance: The American father of the victim, however, thinks otherwise.

Yes they are the same - But I have yet to see a 'fair law' or 'just law' within the context of any judicial system in any nation: whether a law is just or unjust is determined by laws of a particualr time and place. In that, there is no 'pure' notion of justice as such. Only our 'morality' (i.e., history) is able to make such a value judgement of 'just' or 'unjust' within the constraint of particular time and place: Your example of Rosa Parks confirms the validity of my point here.

What I am getting at is this. In your initial post, you wrote:

Your notion of 'higher quality of life' is contingent upon the condition that my future is guranteed by laws: The above italicised sentence would not be materialised unless guranteed by laws. As such you rightly said "t's a given" (here I cannot think of any authority which gives this condition other than via laws).

I could be wrong in saying this but I can almost gurantee you that without these sentences:

and,

- you would have gotten an exact opposite result on your pole. Those sentences assume too much 'rights' for an escaped-prisoner; and, again, those rights are only guranteed by laws in a developed nation.
kind regards,

 

I think I'd commit almost any felony if I was guaranteed to get away with it, as long as it would improve my quality of life.

 

I have been pondering this all day...

I still have no idea what I would do....

I could excape and be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life, living in fear.

Or

I could pray that I legaly get set free and then sue the government for putting me in jail for a large sum.

If I was only in jail for a few years... I'd stay put... there is still a chance my innocents could be proved.

If I was in there for a long time... being a old man... with really not a whole lot of time to live. I would have to excape.... No question about it.

But how long would I'd suffer in jail till I finaly decided to break out?

I do not know....

 

That's why I made it a given that you'd die in prison if you didn't choose to escape, and made it a given that you'd have a higher quality of life if you did choose to escape. So it narrows the issue to whether you would commit a felony if there was nothing to lose.

 

Depends how good or bad I am treated in prision I guess....

 

Been meaning to get back to this...

The proposed sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is justice not as punishment, but to protect society as I said. To me, given the evidence I've seen, it is not worth the risk to others to ever release from prison someone who has brutally raped and murdered, as long as they are treated with basic dignity in prison.

I don’t think about it that way. I support abolishing the death penalty. I think the length of a prison sentence should be that which achieves the best balance between the risk to society and the freedom of the convict.

How was it?

I agree with the father, unless there’s plenty of solid evidence that a 13-year prison sentence for such a crime sufficiently lowers the risk to society. I doubt it, given that there is plenty of contrary evidence that sexual offenders are almost all incurable. In my state (Washington) we have a two-strikes law: the second sex crime yields a life sentence. The re-offense rate was too high otherwise.

Of course. The laws we have are a measure of where the majority arbitrarily stands on the issues. There’s no pure notion of justice just as there’s no truth. We make it up; there’s no other way.

By definition a given has no requirement. You could be on the run from the law the rest of your days, but you’d never be caught because I made that something that you can take for granted as part of the argument. Of course in reality you could not know for sure.

I don’t think it would be the exact opposite, because some people would take the risk without the foreknowledge. After all, it’s a life sentence without the possibility of parole in a maximum security prison you’re serving, and escaping does not yield a death penalty. So the only significant risk you’d be taking by escaping is getting harmed or killed during the escape. I ruled that out as a given so that we could see how many would commit a felony when they had nothing to lose and felt justified.

 

I Would escape because...

I Didn't Do It !!