Wow, talk about having bad reversed implied odds.

Doesn't work like that because the other person must also know that you are innocent.

It can still be ethically superior to kill and survive in some kind of remote from us objective way but its a grey area and depends on what we can call more ethical or more useful human etc. It has to be seen as unethical at first level in order to avoid the slippery slope of justifying all kinds of crimes in order for us to survive and prosper without essentially remaining accountable for it.

It is however true that if you ask me if i am ok with a brilliant scientist escaping to prove their innocence and killing a guard in the process that tried to stop them in a way that if they didn't react to it they would have been definitely captured, i have to say that yes i am ok with it and prefer it as alternative provided there is no other way to prove innocence because death of the innocent person is imminent otherwise. The guard is innocent but is still choosing to work for a system that is not exactly clean 100% and closes its eyes to the truth very often. Since other better jobs exist out there that do not directly hurt people then maybe you feel a little less sympathy for the guard. Never forget the fact however that not only guards are needed, and there is no shame in any job that supports legitimate (even in not perfect) functions of society but that at any given moment in time a person having a job that is not exactly seen as spectacular can still be a very good, ethical, thoughtful person that may be more useful to others than a brilliant but selfish scientist.

This is why a truly ethical person will try as much as possible to avoid being placed at such a dilemma and at times even die on principle remaining faithful to the rule of law of a civilized society. That is still an unfinished business but better than an existence under total disrespect of law as if in a jungle.

If you make the selfish survival above all else choice you better live with the consequences and make the best of it knowing full well that the other person now is dead so that you could live with whatever responsibilities that forces you to accept in order for the choice to be ultimately seen as a plausibly better outcome. To not see it that way makes you still another selfish ahole...that just lived.

I'll take it a step further. All of the following is my opinion only:

There should not be a death penalty anyway. It is moral to kill in self defense, and only when there is no other option. An already imprisoned person is not a threat to anyone. So kill the executioner, even if you're guilty, and feel no remorse. He is immoral for taking the job.

For me people get so up in arms about how good serve us and put their life on the line and should be regarded with extra respect but to me thry knowingly take a dangerous job and thus it should be treated the same as any other job. Shrug. People don't like this opinion.

There shouldn't be unless we are low on resources such as food and water to keep the convict deemed worthy of death alive. What does the death penalty accomplish? Think about it. Well we did. Hence it's been abolished in the most civilised places on earth.

Take my bait.

If we were so low on resources, we would not even have prisons. This is why the death penalty and corporal punishments are relics of a time when we did not have the resources we do today. Maybe someday we will see prisons themselves in the same light. Imagine a system of economic ostracism so complete that anyone determined to be guilty of a crime would have no choice but to voluntarily accept sentence, and one that was focused on reparations to victims rather than retribution.

(Sorry for the late reply)

I'm not sure about that. Ultimately they're just doing their job. They didn't sentence you and they are acting according to their job description and what they are informed.

You say they are part of the system and I think that's incorrect in this sense. They support and work for a system which they expect will be just and righteous. They have zero chance of knowing whether you are really innocent or not and can only act in accordance with what they're told. It was whoever made the judgement "guilty" who made a mistake, it wasn't these people just doing their job and I don't think they are responsible for the higher ups making mistakes.

Even if they are responsible for carrying out the punishment, they are simply doing their job and they cannot be held responsible for failures elsewhere in the system when they themselves have 0% effect on what happens there.

False. Let's assume for the moment that it is okay to kill killers. If person X thinks that I am a killer and kills me, but it turns out I am not a killer, they are themselves a killer and should in turn be killed. It's not a question of what one person believes, but what turns out to be true. Being mistaken is not a defense.

I disagree. Punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and what is proportionate to murder but death?

It's not really a sign of an advanced society to use eye for an eye to measure justice.

Instead of satiating vengeance and bloodlust a society should do what it needs in favour of its inhabitants - including the perpetrator. Murdering people for committing murder isn't really a sign of an advanced society iyam, society needs to operate on a higher standard than the people they're punishing. Eye for an eye is primitive, incarceration for safety reasons is advanced and more ethical.

That's my opinion at least.

Wait... Now Trump punched someone?

Damn... I thought I was paying enough attention... Clearly not.

Within the framework of law you're in a catch 22. Since you are guilty in the legal sense, the proceedings are lawful. So you are attacking a law enforcement officer carrying out his legally given duties. Self-defense can't be argued since it is the right to defend yourself from unlawful acts.

I'm ignoring the possibility of malfeasance (wrongful or unlawful conduct) or nonfeasance (not acting where there is duty to act) in investigation, trial or imprisonment. In such cases you could argue self-defense. But since that is not stated, I take that to mean it is not the subject of the debate.

And yeah, it's a little unfair that the right thing to legally seems to be to die. But that's really the result of a death sentence carrying the peculiar legal trait of not only being punishment, but also the end of your judicial persona and the rights that carries.

Of course, from a framework of ethics the answer would likely be radically different.

Well, I agree, and we are onto something. But Australia still has a lot of space, for now. They went on to be come a civilised nation. Granted the aborigines, got the short coming. Until we can go inter-planetary. We'll wait and see.

Whether you can depends primarily on how strong and agile you are.

Sorry to hear you've fallen on hard times David.

You might be able to argue the defense of "necessity".

Here's a real life example:

A lawyer would need a location and time/date to research the relevant laws and express an opinion (and even then, they can be wrong!). Running it twice might help to reduce variance.

Laws vary by jurisdiction (eg. some States might allow the defense; others might not; others might require you to surrender immediately when the necessity expired). Always practice good prison selection.

If it's still a close decision you can take an unexploitable (GTO) approach by escaping sometimes, and not escaping sometimes, at appropriate frequencies, using a randomization method (eg. the hands of a clock).

Taking a GTO approach means the guards won't be able to exploit you, but it does have the unfortunate consequence that you will die from lethal injection some % of the time. That's poker I'm afraid! It's important to avoid results oriented thinking, even when things don't go our way.

To learn more, check out Theory of Poker by Dav... wait a minute!!!

at a certain point you simply look after your own interests and resort to egoism and ask, "what does game theory suggest about punching the prison guard?"

amiwrong