Say that some random, completely innocent person is tied to a pole, and a group of random people w/ no criminal history take turns punching him until he's dead. This is all caught on camera and everyones face is identified. There is no known motive for this crime. How big do you think this group of people would have to be before no one is charged w/ murder? Also, how big do you think this group of people SHOULD have to be before no one is charged w/ murder? This number can be anything greater than 0. Also, would the size of the group affect the magnitude of the punishment each person recieves? And I guess I'm assuming this takes place in the U.S.

As long as you can I.D everyone...just punish them all IMO..even if it is 100 ppl if you know all 100 then why not get them...they broke the law didn't they.....

this

1. why would the number of people committing the crime have any effect on should they be charged or not?
2. why would the number of people committing the crime have any effect on the sentences that they receive as a result?

1. 3

2. 4+/-

3. Yes.

4. You didn't ask, but you need help. Don't you have something positive to worry about?

The answer is zero.

Also, remove the word "senseless."

There is no number of people for which they shouldn't all be sentenced, assuming they all played a part (this condition may be difficult to meet logistically).

37

The question is good, and the answer is really "when it becomes a norm". Death penalty in the US is from my perspective a senseless murder, but many disagree with me. Stoning women for adultery is for most people in civilized countries senseless murder, but in many societies it is acceptable and it is actually horrible NOT to do it.

So the question definitively has an answer, and it is a very serious question that should give anyone who pauses to think about it a _very_ serious concern.

That you should punish everyone...bah...nice thoughts but do we ever really think like that? Should we punish everyone for not wearing a burka? Should we punish everyone for drinking alcohol? Should we punish everyone that supported war "X"?

If we go back in time, then societies enjoyed seeing people kill eachother for sport. To an extent we still do.

The lesson is that almost any norm should be questioned.

Everyone of them should be punished and rightly so.

In all liklihood, nobody would get charged with murder. If 100 people queued up and all had a punch, how would you prove which punch or combination of punches killed the guy? He might die after the 27th person punches him, but from injuries caused by the 7th or 8th or 9th. More likely is that they would all get charged with a lesser offence like manslaughter

This

Reckless homicide or something. You won't get a murder conviction unless you can prove which person delivered the killing blow. And if you do that, by definition everyone else would get off.

I can tell you that this is not true in Norway, and unless you have specific knowledge I doubt that it is true in the US. Here, at least, if two people intentionally give a person half a lethal dose of poison each, without even knowing about each other, they are both sentenced for murder.

It's not about numbers it's about proportions. In an isolated community composed of 200 inhabitants. 100 get toi kill with impunity.

In a state with 100,000 inhabitants. 100 will propbably be punished.

Surely this is a pretty basic problem. Once the group of murderers out numbers the forces society can muster to stop them, then they become unpunishable (they in fact become our new leaders in all likelyhood).

In reality they would all get charged with manslaughter, since you could only demonstrate intent to harm over intent to kill. But setting that aside there is no upwards limit, both in terms of the law and by any normal ethical standard.

That may or may not be true in Norway, but it certainly isn't in the US or in any other legal system historically rooted in British law, wherein the principle point of a murder/manslaughter separation is intent to kill.

I would assume all of the punchers would be charged with battery only. Those with tied the guy up to the post might possibly be charged with the murder. (Unless the same people did the tying and the punching and there were very few of them.)

I don't know but if the group of people = (total population) - (person on the pole), that's not a good reason to end the human race.

conspiracy laws will ennable the prosecutor the charge everyone with murder.

The OP was asking for more "ethical" reasoning than legal reasoning.

However for those who HAVE used law: As the number of people participating in this act reaches critical mass for the judicial system to punish, the system will inevitably fail.

We could go into all kinds of hokus-pokery as to why, but suffice to say that judicial systems can't bring order to chaos, they can only bring more order to a system that is already fairly stable.

I'd guess somewhere along 5-10% of its populace is the "critical treshold" for most modern nations to persecute legally (beyond simple fines or proverbial slaps on the wrist) before they either collapse or change the laws, and to be honest I think that is a VERY optimistic estimate.

Ofcourse if you assume cruder punishment and less bureaucratic hassle (also knowns as "rights") you can increase the percentage.

i could be wrong, but i think any reasonable person would realize that a mass gang beating of someone tied to a pole is going to result in their death. intent to kill isn't just what you say your intentions are, its what a reasonable person would have realized would result from their actions.

also, i'm pretty sure he's talking about the felony murder rule, or that sort of thing. i don't think it would apply here but i also don't know that much about law and wouldn't be surprised if something of that sort did apply, assuming it was agreed that the charge should be murder and not manslaughter.

Hell has room for all of them, no matter what the number.