Summary Execution?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
A situation X occurs, you are in a small group (or large) a person commits a crime (e.g. murder, robbery, rape) you know there’s no where to lock him up (e.g. prison) and you can't afford to put someone to guarding him all the time, if you release him he may pose a threat to others and if you let him off you are setting the example to others that these actions are acceptable.

What do you do?

[edit on 26-9-2007 by kaos1911]




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kaos1911
 


Go and have a sandwich and consider even more silly pointless situations ?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kaos1911
 


Tie him up tightly to a tree. Then go have a sandwich!



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I'd say confine the person and have all the adults in the group decide what his fate is. If the group is big enough then it is feasible to confine him/her for a period of time. I'd say two strikes and you're outta here... repeat offenders should be banished or shot (depending on the crime).
You're going to have people who wont be able to cope with the new way of living and you could see things like recreational drug and alcohol use as a means of coping. Are you going to try to enforce marajuanna laws?
Blue laws? Hard core drug use? grafiti or some other type vandalism?
I'd try to avoid any one person deciding the fate for any group member as we all know the old saying, "Absolute power corupts absolutely". By doing that you have put a dictator in place. Now to sound totally hypocritical my home is in fact a dictatorship, just ask my kids. lol I am referring to groups larger than your immediate family that will have other adults and/or kids who will be depending on your resources and wisdom to keep them alive.
Jules



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Exactly. I'd be inclined to form some type of jury to decide the punishment. In a scenario where society has broken down, we don't get anywhere if we don't try to build it back up.

The situation itself will dictate how to proceed, as nothing is black and white in your situation X. Murder for instance, may have been justified under the circumstances. I do believe however, that in this scenario, punishments should be swift and harsh, but the facts still have to be established.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
If the jury finds him guilty, it's better to cut off his thumbs and big toes instead of killing him. That way he can't pick up a weapon or run.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Back to good ol public hanging



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Keeping in mind that the scenario is a "survival" situation, this is a very plausible question.

As previously mentioned, I think it best to try to organize a court. There would be a judge and jury. The accused would state his case and the survival group would state their case. The jury would make the ultimate decision.

Summary execution is serious business but so is survival. In a survival situation, it is difficult or even impossible to imprison someone or to assign someone to guard an unreliable person 24/7. You are taking away a valuable asset of the group -- someone who could be actively working for the viability of the entire group through hunting, construction etc.

I think that providing the accused member of the group with a trial would be the very best way of dealing with situations where you have a rogue member -- someone who commits a capital crime against the entire group. In a survival situation, working together is often the only advantage that one has for survival and no group can afford to have a counter element within that group.

An alternative to summary execution, however, could be banishment. Throw the rogue out of the survival group.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I think this has already been discussed I may be wrong I often am

loose cannon



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
One thing to keep in mind is that the severity of laws would change.
Drug crimes wouldn't be as huge a threat as say a person who was stealing food/water from the group. Anyone caught stealing precious food or water probably wouldn't get a second strike. Cases like rape? I say let the victim choose any punishment she (or he) sees fit. Child molestation? I say let the parents of the victim child at the molester and let them dole out punishment. Anyone who was a threat to the well being of the group couldn't stay. J walking? Gosh have a nice day.
Jules



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by angryamerican
I think this has already been discussed I may be wrong I often am

loose cannon


Good point, aa. Started less than a week ago.

................* Thread Closed *..........

Please direct your remarks Here



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join