There is a vast difference in legal and moral. Legally, in order to hold him, you have to prove his guilt. You cannot prove guilt for a crime that has not yet been committed.
Morally, you could assume that killing the one would be preferable to allowing the death of thousands and thereby arrange for him to remain captive or be killed before he can carry out that act. But using the legal system to accomplish this undermines the bedrock of the system, which presumes innocence. Logically, your statement is a fallacy, but you can never KNOW that he will kill again. On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > No, I am suggesting a specific moral dilemma. Can you free a guilty man > knowing that he will commit an act of terror that will kill a thousand > people? I am making two assumptions in this question - you know the man is > guilty but national security prevents you from presenting evidence to that > effect, and you know that he will commit an act of terror that will kill a > thousand people. Do you let him go? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:286608 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
