Who bears the greater guilt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JHow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JHow

Guest
I hope this is the right location for this. If not, moderators, please let me know.

The philosophical question I have is:

Which bears the greater guilt: a judge who knowingly condemns an innocent man, or a king who knows the same man is innocent yet does not grant him a pardon?

For our purposes, assume each knows that the condemned man has committed no crime, assume that the legal process is such that the judge determines guilt by himself (i.e., no jury), and assume that the king has the power to grant a pardon.
 
Caiphas or Pilate?

Jesus told Pilate that the one who handed him over bore greater guilt but did he refer to Ciaphas or Judas?
 
JHow said:
I hope this is the right location for this. If not, moderators, please let me know.

The philosophical question I have is:

Which bears the greater guilt: a judge who knowingly condemns an innocent man, or a king who knows the same man is innocent yet does not grant him a pardon?

For our purposes, assume each knows that the condemned man has committed no crime, assume that the legal process is such that the judge determines guilt by himself (i.e., no jury), and assume that the king has the power to grant a pardon.
Click to expand...
I’d say the king, who has the last say in pardon. A judge’s decision can be reviewed by writ or appeal.
 
I say the judge, because he has acted with malice, and actively abused his duty and authority. The king’s crime is one of omission, and is certainly serious, but it is not as great as the judge who has the primary responsibility for ensuring the man has a fair trial and sentence.

However, if this case were repeated then I believe the duty of the king to pardon the innocent, and dismiss the judge, becomes greater, and then, if he fails to act, his guilt would be greater than the judge’s.

This example has many ramifications for “passing the buck” in real life, and the answer can vary, depending on all the circumstances. The crucial thing in this case is that the judge himself is a senior appointment, with independent authority. He’s not just an “employee” of the king - he has been given the responsibility for making right judgment, and has accepted that responsibility.

Looking forward to what the lawyers have to say 🙂
 
SonCatcher said:
Caiphas or Pilate?

Jesus told Pilate that the one who handed him over bore greater guilt but did he refer to Ciaphas or Judas?
Click to expand...
I can’t answer that, but would observe that both Caiaphas and Judas probably had greater guilt than Pilate because they both had better knowledge of who Jesus is and what His mission was.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
I’d say the king, who has the last say in pardon. A judge’s decision can be reviewed by writ or appeal.
Click to expand...
When I sat on a jury in a murder trial part of the judge’s charge was that we were responsible for our verdict and not to expect him or an appeals course to correct our errors. It was intimidating to realize that I had complete power to stop the procedure and couldn’t hold anyone else responsible for my action.

I think that every decision maker in the process is equally responsible.
 
The judge because his ruling creates bad reputation, even if a pardon was granted.

Although, it should be the inocent man’s obligation to serve the time, while finding a peaceful resolution. He should still set an example.
 
innocent and guilty have slightly different meanings in a law court than they do in the real world.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
innocent and guilty have slightly different meanings in a law court than they do in the real world.
Click to expand...
Good point. For my question I am more interested in moral guilt as opposed to legal guilt. Probably there is nothing legally wrong with witholding a pardon, for example. Let’s assume that that is discretionary.

Thanks to all that have responded so far. I don’t want to intrude too much in the voting, since this poll is in response to a recent conversation I had, and I don’t want to color how people react to this. You can use the meaning of “guilt” in the sense you think best fits here.
 
I’ll add something else. In the real world, neither the fact finding judge nor the pardoning authority has the kind of omniscience your hypo suggests. The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict means that the government can prove its case even if a lingering doubt remains.
 
Both are **equally **guilty of causing an innocent man to suffer and be punished.
 
JHow said:
I hope this is the right location for this. If not, moderators, please let me know.

The philosophical question I have is:

Which bears the greater guilt: a judge who knowingly condemns an innocent man, or a king who knows the same man is innocent yet does not grant him a pardon?

For our purposes, assume each knows that the condemned man has committed no crime, assume that the legal process is such that the judge determines guilt by himself (i.e., no jury), and assume that the king has the power to grant a pardon.
Click to expand...
The King has greater guilt.

Unless he’s a Constitutional Monarch, most Kings (Historically, at least) have been Absolutist and could do whatever they liked.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
The King has greater guilt.

Unless he’s a Constitutional Monarch, most Kings (Historically, at least) have been Absolutist and could do whatever they liked.
Click to expand...
the pardoning authority doesn’t have the same perspective as the fact finder, so its one step further removed from what exactly happened.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
the pardoning authority doesn’t have the same perspective as the fact finder, so its one step further removed from what exactly happened.
Click to expand...
True-------but IF the King is an Absolutist Authority, the aforementioned Authority can override whatever the Fact Finder finds out, even indeed if the Facts are Exculpatory. The can (again) do whatever they want according to their whim.😦
Even if the Absolutist Authority KNEW ALL THE FACTS, they can still override that----and that is the tragedy. :mad:

Plus----most Judges can be removed and their rulings overturned if wrongdoing or malfeasance is detected; one can’t really do that in an Absolutist Monarchy (for the most part—if one counts Forcible Rebellion and/or Assasination).

Easier with a Constitutional Monarchy, but still an uphill climb.👍
 
After two days, the Judge and Both Equally are out in front, and there’s nothing separating them…

The King, and Binary Proposition have fallen out of the race.

This is an exciting race. Who will be first to the finish line???

:slapfight:
🍿
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
True-------but IF the King is an Absolutist Authority, the aforementioned Authority can override whatever the Fact Finder finds out, even indeed if the Facts are Exculpatory. The can (again) do whatever they want according to their whim.😦
Even if the Absolutist Authority KNEW ALL THE FACTS, they can still override that----and that is the tragedy. :mad:

Plus----most Judges can be removed and their rulings overturned if wrongdoing or malfeasance is detected; one can’t really do that in an Absolutist Monarchy (for the most part—if one counts Forcible Rebellion and/or Assasination).

Easier with a Constitutional Monarchy, but still an uphill climb.👍
Click to expand...
but no one really KNOWS what really happened, which almost counterfeits the hypothetical.
 
The response to this poll has been slow, probably because it’s buried down in Apologetics → Philosophy, or maybe because it refers to “a king”, which is (I am guessing) seen as an anachronism.

I keep hoping that we’ll get an answer from an expert in law or moral philosophy.

I’ve really enjoyed this poll and discussion - it’s a fascinating question.
 
I would say that the judge bears the greater fault. The core duties of both positions are different. The judge is tasked with condemning the guilty and freeing the innocent (or so it would seem in this scenario). Basically to hand out justice without bias.

The king on the other hand is tasked with running his nation and overseeing the overall harmony of his charges (or so I would like to think).

With that, the judge would be in direct violation of his core responsibilities, whereas the king may be not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top