Question about law

[Jumaj]

Hi,
I’m curious and I’ve got another, maybe stupid question,
thank you for your time:

I’ve just watched a film, set in the 19 century,
in which a detective frees a woman, who years ago saw killing someone and, but when she came to testify against him (he was already capive in jail), she was too afraid that he would kill her, that a policeman had to press on her to report him.
The said detective then stopped further process, because the testifying she gave was under pressure and the murderer was freed.
The murderer then caught the woman and did terrible things to her, ruins her future marriage and disables her to have children.
Much later, the woman is finds out, that he killed many women and she is given a chance to kill him. She no longer believes, that law can help her, so she kills him.
The detective finds out, and when everyone is elsewhere he frees her from jail (otherwise she would have been hanged), trying to recompense her for what he did.

Has the detective decided wrong?
He broke the law, but he saved a womans life and gave her a chance to repent from her sins…

Thanks for your time, again,
God Bless

 

[GEddie]

Hmmm.

What is the title of this film?

Based on your description, although the detective broke the law and violated his trust, he did it to save a human being from death. There was no other way to do it, so I’d say that double effect is invoked.

But I am a nonphilosopher.

It is, objectively, wrong to flout the law, or to violate a trust you are given to uphold. But in this instance, ISTM he would be morally exculpated.

ICXC NIKA

 

[hotdiggity]

i don’t have all the information as i’ve not seen the movie but if a person breaks a condemned convict out of prison in order to prevent the state from carrying out a lawful sentence, i can’t see that as anything but wrong on the part of the person who released the prisoner without authority.

so what if the detective applied some form of “pressure” to get the witness to participate…was it unreasonable pressure? idk, i haven’t seen the film…

i would think the prisoner has ample time to repent of her sin prior to execution…one’s physical location has no bearing on one’s repentance does it? can she not just as easily repent of her sin in prison?

 

[Jumaj]

i don’t have all the information as i’ve not seen the movie but if a person breaks a condemned convict out of prison in order to prevent the state from carrying out a lawful sentence, i can’t see that as anything but wrong on the part of the person who released the prisoner without authority.

so what if the detective applied some form of “pressure” to get the witness to participate…was it unreasonable pressure? idk, i haven’t seen the film…

i would think the prisoner has ample time to repent of her sin prior to execution…one’s physical location has no bearing on one’s repentance does it? can she not just as easily repent of her sin in prison?

Actually, it is a TV series, not a film, called The Murdoch’s Mysteries, the detective is a good catholic brought up by Jesuit monks, however, he often serves law rather than God, he is an inventor by hobby and uses most modern technologies, like fingerprinting in his investigations. The series is great, watch an episode!

The woman wasn’t repetant in jail, she would go to hell, she didn’t regret her murder, but she would have time to realize the wrong she done and repent, alive, if he let her out…

 

[GEddie]

Actually, it is a TV series, not a film, called The Murdoch’s Mysteries, the detective is a good catholic brought up by Jesuit monks, however, he often serves law rather than God, he is an inventor by hobby and uses most modern technologies, like fingerprinting in his investigations. The series is great, watch an episode!

The woman wasn’t repetant in jail, she would go to hell, she didn’t regret her murder, but she would have time to realize the wrong she done and repent, alive, if he let her out…

Sounds cool; what channel is it on?