Is millions of lives worth the death of one child?

Question

Is millions of lives worth the death of one child?

Hypothetically speaking!!!

A brilliant scientist has the cure for ALL diseases and cancer in his head. After he gives his formula – the world will be Utopia. He is the only person in the world with this cure. If he dies before he tells the cure, it will be lost forever.

Now, before this scientist gives the cure, he goes out and pulls a John Couey and murders and rapes a child. During the trial, he says that if he is convicted in any way, he will not disclose the cure. HE MUST BE EXONERATED. Do we let him get away with the most reprehensible crime of rape and murder of a child to save the lives of millions of people?

This scientist is pure evil. Nobody can change his mind. He will take the cure to his grave. In this fantasy world, if we exonerate him – he cannot be charged again or “accidentally” killed after he gives the cure. He must be accepted back into society as if he had done nothing wrong.

Is the death of one child worth the lives and humanity of millions?

I am a law student and this is one of the ethics questions I need to poll.

Remember, this is HYPOTHETICAL... He cannot be harmed AFTER he gives the cure... He cannot be killed... he cannot have a bullet put in his head... he will be exonerated!!!

In this fantasy world.... their IS a CURE and it does work. It is in his head. Only he has the cure and nobody for the rest of eternity will be able to find it. This is a ONE SHOT DEAL.

Answer 1

No...he must punish for his crimes as justice would dictate. If you set a precedent of the person's ability to contribute...then on a smaller scale, you'll see injustice for the relative good the person is capable of in society. You set a precedent that allows doctors to be punished less than janitors, etc. A very dangerous precedent.

Remember the statue of Blind justice...weigh fairly. The person's brilliance or contribution to society is not at issue in the trial...you could argue for a lighter sentence because of the person's standing in the community, but not for exoneration...that is not justice.

Answer 2

No deal. People have lived with sickness and disease throughout history. This man is truly evil and needs to be punished. If he came up with a cure, then someone else will eventually figure it out as well. People will just have to continue to live as they have. You will only have true utopia when the Earth is rid of all evil anyways. What good is it to be cured of a deadly disease when you have a crazy murderer loose on the streets who just might kill you? What about after this scientist goes free, another crazy scientist murderer tells everyone that he has the solution to fix global warming instantly with very minimal cost but will not disclose this information unless he goes free and has an endless supply of children for his own amusement? When would the terror then end?

Answer 3

He claims to have the cure. It does not mean he really does have it, there is no proof thus the cure currently does not exist. Based on that you would not exonerate him because there is no proof that he can fulfill his claim.

You can also argue that once science knows something can be done, a means to do it will always be found. Knowing that this person has committed this crime and that he will likely do something similar again, you cannot release him into society.

In either case you must convict this person and take your chances with the future. He is a known danger to society where is cure is not proven and if it is possible another will figure out how to do it.

Answer 4

I would convict him and lock him up for the rest of his life. He may eventually have a change of heart at some point. I would not let him back out into society. I don't necessarily think that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few and I don't necessarily think that finding a cure for all diseases will result in utopia, either. If people never die, there will be less and less resources to sustain us and less and less space to live.

I agree with Jennifer S above. True Utopia would be the absence of evil (peace) not the absence of disease.

Answer 5

If he found the cure, the cure does exist, someone else will find it at some point.

On the other hand, it would save a great deal of people.

Meh, I say exonerate him. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. However, legally, he should be convicted.

Answer 6

OK well we get the cure then. Test it make sure this is right. well since we know it and know that it works why not go ahead and kill him then? What wold be stopping anyone from killing him then? But if no one would do it then I'd say yes, the child is already dead and killing the man would not bring the child back. But this evil man could save millions of lives, its better that way, and one day this man would die anyway. (Chances are tho that the kids father would take this guy out either way. The rage of a parent is very strong.I know my boyfriend would kill anyone who ever touched our daughter.)

Answer 7

As ever the 'The regulation is an ***' attorneys first 'accountability' (to defence clientele) is to reject, deny, dispute - and postpone for as long as accessible. whilst glaring info and/or Jury verdicts bypass against those upholders of the regulation - and justice - they're greater desirable than able to uttering shite phrases approximately 'closure' - or all due reimbursement. (collectively as they have been earning a great selection dollars - delaying a case that should/could have settled lots quicker.) The quantum of reimbursement dispensable/awardable is yet another difficulty altogether. No-you may actually ever 'quantify' grief - the shortcoming of a liked newborn elderly 4 - killed by a decrease than the impact of alcohol driving force, pleading and defended by attorneys - that it grow to be an 'accident'. in spite of the undeniable fact that great or grossly unfair it ought to look - fact is - loss of 'financial' cost - loss of destiny earnings because of negligent taking photos, dying or disability of the sufferers may well be extensive type-crunched, assessed and calculated - even with years of postpone - and at last provided to those pursuit of a justifiable declare. The regulation maintains to be an *** - as ever grow to be - and is long over-due for reform. yet do no longer carry your breath, hoping attorneys will ever reform it - collectively as the status quo suits them so nicely.

Answer 8

It's all part of plea-bargaining.

Do you make a deal with a terrorist who knows when and how NYC will be nuked?

Keep in mind that you are NOT killing the kid. The kid is ALREADY DEAD.

I think better questions include "Do you spend millions of dollars to separate congjoined twins? Or do you realize that a million dollars can feed 2,500 starving people in Africa for a year?"

Answer 9

Put him away. Also consider that knowing this cure will work only comes from his head. It is unproven sceince vs. true quilt.

PS. As a mom I vote Death.

Answer 10

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... I'd say that saving millions of lives would be worth the lives of several hundred babies.