sereshka: (coffee)
[personal profile] sereshka
Задачка от Рэймонда Смуллиана:

Три путешественника - A, В и С - остановились на ночь в оазисе. А ненавидел С, решил его убить и ночью подсыпал отраву ему в бурдюк с водой. В тоже ненавидел С и тайно проделал дырку в бурдюке, так что вода незаметно вылилась. В результате, С умер через несколько дней в пустыне от жажды. Кто виноват в смерти?

Адвокат А утверждает, что его клиент не может быть виновен, так как С не пил отраву.

Адвокат В утверждает, что во-первых выпустить отравленную воду значит на самом деле оказать человеку услугу, а во вторых его действия на судьбу С никоим образом повлиять не могли -- С был обречен, когда А подсыпал отраву.

За намерение судить нельзя. 

Интересно, как эта ситуация рассматривалась бы законом?

Date: 2013-01-30 05:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yelya.livejournal.com
Well... I just passed my criminal law class, although I am not yet sure how...
In the case of a criminal offense such as murder, you would need to prove causation - that somebody's action caused the victim's death. In this case, A's actions were not the cause of C's death, so the causation element is not there, therefore, A cannot be found guilty of murder. B's actions, on the other hand, were directly responsible for C's death, so the causation element is there (as well as other elements, like the the guilty mind). So, I'd say that B would be found guilty, while A would not be. Had B not punched holes in C's burdyuk, A would be guilty, of course.

Date: 2013-01-30 03:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
Can one say that B's actions were responsible for C's death rather than for prolonging C's life by several days? Obviously, one cannot cause death and prolong life at the same time.

Alternatively, suppose B knew that the water was poisoned. Then C would die as a consequence of B's actions if B *did not* punch the holes. Whereas punching would not be considered causing death of C, certainly not *directly*. The direct cause would be lack of clean water.

Date: 2013-01-30 03:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yelya.livejournal.com
Can one say that B's actions were responsible for C's death rather than for prolonging C's life by several days? Obviously, one cannot cause death and prolong life at the same time.

Yeah, one can say that. B deprived C of water, and C died of thirst. B is responsible alright. :)

Alternatively, suppose B knew that the water was poisoned. Then C would die as a consequence of B's actions if B *did not* punch the holes. Whereas punching would not be considered causing death of C, certainly not *directly*. The direct cause would be lack of clean water.

You are not criminally responsible for what you did not do, only for what you actually did. So, B cannot be guilty of C's death for not punching the holes. I don't even think that B can be held responsible for not telling C that his water is poisoned (this depends on other circumstances). Also, it's not like punching holes was the only alternative - B could just tell C: "Look, dude, your water is poisoned". :)

Date: 2013-01-30 04:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
B deprived C of poisoned water. This could not be the cause of death.
If B knew about the poison and still punched the holes, would your argument change? Now it looks like B was actually trying to save C. Is he still guilty?
You cannot hold him responsible for not saying anything to C, like you said - you are not responsible for what you did not do.

Date: 2013-01-30 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yelya.livejournal.com
Well, in the problem the cause of death was thirst, and B deprived C of water, so B clearly caused C's death. As Lusya said, this case is pretty clear cut.

Date: 2013-01-31 01:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
It is not as clear as you claim. C died because his supply of water was smaller then he thought. His supply of drinkable water was diminished when A put poison in it. Actions of B did not affect the supply of drinkable water.

Date: 2013-01-31 04:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yelya.livejournal.com
We are going in circles here. :) It's pretty clear from the point of view of the law. :)

Date: 2013-01-30 07:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wielder.livejournal.com
Виновен С без вариантов.

Date: 2013-01-30 01:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angerona.livejournal.com
Тоже мне, бином Ньютона :).

Виноват Б, потому что он совершил действия, которые привлеи к смерти А. Что там было бы в другом варианте — совсем другой вопрос. Может у С оказался бы иммунитет к яду, а может А напутал и это не яд, а сахар и т.д. В любом случае, это уже не вопрос. В хотел убить С? убил. Значит виноват. А при этом может быть виноват в покушении.

Вот тебе задачка: с одного конца леса А разводит пожар. С другого конца леса, В делает так же, не зная, что А этим уже занимается. В результате обе линии огня сливаются и идут по направлению к дому С и сжигают весь дом.

Ни А ни Б в принципе вообще дом С сжечь не хотели, но ветер поменялся внезапно. Кто виноват? А говорит, что нельзя доказать, что это вина того пожара, что он начал. Б — тоже самое.

Date: 2013-01-30 03:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
Мог ли Б продлить жизнь и убить одновременно? Что продлил - очевидно.
Так же как у С мог оказаться иммунитет к яду, у С мог оказаться запасной бурдюк.

В твоей задачке ситуация симметрична. Оба виноваты в неумышленном нанесении ущерба.

Date: 2013-01-30 05:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angerona.livejournal.com
"мог ли бы" -- это вопрос гораздо более частый в криминальных делах, чем кажется. И решается всегда довольно просто: "а это уже не важно. Он хотел сделать Х. Он сделал Х. Значит виновен в Х. За это и судим."

Работает во всех направлениях: если хотел убить, но жертва оказалась более живуча, чем предполагалось, и не умерла -- то судить все-таки будут не за убийство, а за что-то меньшее. С другой стороны, если хотел просто дать пощечину, а жертва оказалась более нежная, чем предполагалось, и умерла, то судить будут за убийство -- потому что "задумал? сделал? значит отвечаешь за результат полностью."

Зачастую это проговаривают фразой "you take the victim as you find him."

Date: 2013-01-31 01:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
http://sereshka.livejournal.com/88855.html?thread=479255#t479255

It is not obvious that B did kill. His actions did not cause death any more than A's actions. The supply of drinkable water was affected by A but not by B.

Date: 2013-01-31 12:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] igorlord.livejournal.com
You are confused. C died of dehydration, not qof poisoning. This is how B palnned to kill him. A's actions did not and could not possibly cause this manner of death.

Date: 2013-01-30 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_milashka/
я то же самое сказала

Date: 2013-01-30 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_milashka/
КМК, по закону виновен В

А то, что сделал А - вообще hearsay. Подсыпал он отраву или нет, была ли это вообще отрава, а не сахар, доказать может только экспертиза. Но по-любому, С эту воду не пил, так что А виновен не может быть

Date: 2013-01-30 04:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
Поменялось бы твое мнение, если бы следствию стало известно, что Б знал об отраве и все равно сделал то что сделал? Б не объясняет свои поступки, отказываясь от показаний.

Date: 2013-01-30 04:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_milashka/
Нет, он а) признает злой умысел и ненависть, и б) единственное, что бы могло его оправдать, это если бы он сообщил С об отраве и С сам решил бы проколоть свой бурдюк

Date: 2013-01-30 05:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angerona.livejournal.com
если Б не обьясняет свои поступки, то это совсем другая ситуация, чем у тебя в записи изначально. Потому что изначально у него был mens rea -- желание убить. А если не обьясняет (то есть если может он хотел спасти и думал, что у С есть запасной бурдюк или где-то тут рядом кран с питьевой водой) -- то это уже все-таки другая ситуация.

Date: 2013-01-31 02:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
Yes, I was purposefully changing the condition to illustrate a point. If your verdict depends on B's intentions, then you cannot claim that B's *actions* unequivocally caused C's death. As said above, in criminal law you need to prove that somebody's actions caused victims death. If the causality between actions and consequences depends on intentions, i. e. on something that happens only inside someone's head, then the objective causal link is not there. B did not cause C's death.

Date: 2013-01-31 03:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angerona.livejournal.com
As said above, in criminal law you need to prove that somebody's actions caused victims death. If the causality between actions and consequences depends on intentions, i. e. on something that happens only inside someone's head, then the objective causal link is not there.

You are confused about what one needs in criminal law to prove guilt. How about you don't make such assertions without reading about it first.

Of course you need to know what's "in someone's head" to know if they are guilty or not of many-many crimes. Most of them, in fact. There are very few crimes for which it doesn't matter what their thinking was.

Date: 2013-01-31 12:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] igorlord.livejournal.com
By your logic, most crimes could not be punished, because criminals do not admit to having criminal intention, and we do not have technology to get inside their head.

Juries are in court specifically for this very purpose -- to get inside someone's head and guess what they were thinking. If the juries are pretty certain about their guess, they decide that"this its how it was".

Date: 2013-01-30 10:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] igorlord.livejournal.com
> Поменялось бы твое мнение, если бы следствию стало известно, что Б знал об отраве и все равно сделал то что сделал?

You probably meant something like "B wanted to derive the satisfaction of killing C himself; so he happily saved C from being killed by A to be able to know that it was his (B's) actions that killed C"? If so, no change. See http://sereshka.livejournal.com/88855.html?thread=478743#t478743

Date: 2013-01-31 02:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
http://sereshka.livejournal.com/88855.html?thread=480023#t480023

Date: 2013-01-30 09:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] igorlord.livejournal.com
I am not a lawyer, but....

If X wanted Y to happen, planned how to make Y happen, did everything he could to make Y happen, then X is guilty (if Y is actually a crime) of either:
(a) Y, if Y happened due to X's efforts, or
(b) Attempted Y, if X's efforts did not end up causing Y

So in your example, A is guilty of an attempted murder, and B is guilty of murder. Simple as that. The other considerations are irrelevant. Note that the punishment for Y and attempted Y is usually similar (although for murder is may differ in the worst cases of murder).

Date: 2013-01-31 02:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sereshka.livejournal.com
No argument that A is guilty of attempted murder.

But C did not die because of B's efforts. If anything, A lived for several more days because of B's efforts. B wanted to deprive A of drinkable water, but he didn't! A did, when he put poison in it! (Replace poison with salt and see for yourself.)

So it is clear that B is guilty of an attempt, but there is no logical reason to say that his actions actually caused death.

I am not so much interested in degrees of punishment for attempt vs murder, this was originally a mathematical/logical problem.

Date: 2013-01-31 12:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] igorlord.livejournal.com
What?? How can you say that "C did not die because of B's efforts?" Sure, B could had saved C's life first, but that is irrelevant. It is also, in fact, irrelevant that he saved C's life first unknowingly (could had saved it knowingly). He wanted C to die, intended to kill C by dehydration, made a plan as to how to do so, effected on that plan, and C died of dehydration.

Profile

sereshka: (Default)
sereshka

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345 678
910111213 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 12:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios