Sandstone Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 There are 5 people in a room, they consist of. The first is a man who has just lost his wife and child. The second is a District Atourney. The third is a man convicted of kidnapping, raping, torturing, and eventually killing the first man's wife and child. The fourth is the convicted man's defense lawyer. The last is a prison guard. Which man do you think is mostly likely to kill someone else in the room?
NaBarney Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 If the convicted man was innocent he might try to kill his lawyer or the DA, but I think everyone would gang up on him if that happened and the prison guard would put a bullet in him.
Admin Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 it's not necessarily a psychological question in the sense that you can actually answer statistically that it would most likely be the prison guard. though I sort of get the concept of gauging one's views on authority in general, crime and punishment, innocence and guilt, etc etc. I think the question is too simplistic for that and actually has statistically quantifiable elements (though admittedly vague ones).
scoobdog Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 Along the same lines as Luuv.... this question does not provide adequate context beyond the basic premise to qualify probability.
Sandstone Posted March 20, 2017 Author Posted March 20, 2017 Ok, well thanks for all participating. I was just curious to see how many of you came to the same conclusion that I already know first hand. The most dangerous man is always the one that has nothing to lose, and more dangerous is the one that has had everything and then has nothing. That's my perspective.
Sandstone Posted March 20, 2017 Author Posted March 20, 2017 it's not necessarily a psychological question in the sense that you can actually answer statistically that it would most likely be the prison guard. though I sort of get the concept of gauging one's views on authority in general, crime and punishment, innocence and guilt, etc etc. I think the question is too simplistic for that and actually has statistically quantifiable elements (though admittedly vague ones). It's interesting to me that you think I asked the question to gauge views on authority or crime or innocence. It's just an expression of a notion. One that I have come to acquire through a long and arduous process. I do however love to see the difference of interpretations on the matter. Perhaps this is why Jesus told parables, and didn't give many answers.
DragonSinger Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 It's interesting to me that you think I asked the question to gauge views on authority or crime or innocence. It's just an expression of a notion. One that I have come to acquire through a long and arduous process. I do however love to see the difference of interpretations on the matter. Perhaps this is why Jesus told parables, and didn't give many answers. But you also have to consider that a situation with all of them in the same room would be someplace like a court where only the prison guard from that scenario would have a gun. And while the father in that situation will probably be the most volatile, he'll be watched like a hawk to prevent him from attacking the murderer.
tsar4 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Not enough information. Conviction does not necessarily mean the guilty party was convicted. If the victim's husband believes the convicted man committed the crime, then he'd be the most likely to go after the convicted man. But - what if he doesn't go after the convicted man? Perhaps the husband himself committed the crime. In that case, the convicted man could kill the Defense Attorney for failing him or go after the Husband if he knew the truth. Beyond those two, I could only see the Prosecuting Attorney going after the Husband and only if he believed the Husband to be the actual guilty party. I can't see any scenario where the Defense Attorney or Prison guard killing anyone except in self-defense.
Recommended Posts