Jury test

[Deleted]

I recently heard of a test i found interesting. I tried it first on my family then friends and even lawyers but my curiosity is not satisfied and I have to try it on the Internet !

A woman feels neglected by her husband who come back from work late. She decides to have a lover in the city who lives on the other side of the river, meeting him during the day and leaving at night.
One night she saw on the bridge a crazy person. She knows that this person is dangerous and decided to not cross the bridge.
She went to a ferryman and explained the situation, but she had no money and he refused.
She went back to her lover, explained the situation and ask for money but he refused.
She met a friend who she knew is in love with her, she explained the situation (not the lover part) but he refused.
She tried again with the ferryman and he refused again.

She finally tried to cross the bridge and she was killed by the crazy person.

In this story, order all the protagonists (the husband, the woman, the friend, the lover, the ferryman and the crazy person) by order of responsibility in her death. Some may be considered totally innocent, it's your choice based on your view of the law, morality...anything. There are no correct answer and no tricks in this story (and no further details).

However the subject can fastly become inapropriate so try to stay civil, please.

[the game]

Why the fuck would anybody but the person who killed her be responsible?

[Deleted]

Responsible is different from guilty.

One may think that the woman put herself in danger by not staying safe.
One may think a crazy people is legally not responsible of his action.
One may think the lover did not help a person in danger.

For instance I personnaly think that the husband and the crazy person are not responsible. However I am conflicted about the killer because even if the law say he is not responsible in my country it is still hard to accept. I do not think they are any guilty in that list, just some minor to medium part of responsibility.

For instance, the first time I heard of that example the vast majority of the room thought the woman was the most responsible because she cheated.

[Blueobelisk]

Cheating whore: 5% responsible.
Husband: 0% responsible.
Friend: 4% responsible.
Ferryman: 1% responsible.
Lover: 5% responsible.
Crazy person on bridge: 85% responsible.

Girl is responsible because she was out where she wasn't supposed to be, and even so she should have asked police to escort her if she was in that much danger.

Husband did nothing wrong.

Friend could have been a friend and loaned money since she explained the situation, but it's not his problem. He should only lose a week's worth of sleep over it.

Ferryman could have been nice and let her on but he's just doing his job. He can just lose 1 night's sleep.

Lover is partly the reason she was in the situation but she knew she was doing wrong so it's just like he created the situation.

Crazy person is almost completely responsible. I don't really feel bad about a cheater dying but he should still be punished.

[Dextroden]

Responsible is different from guilty.

One may think that the woman put herself in danger by not staying safe.
One may think a crazy people is legally not responsible of his action.
One may think the lover did not help a person in danger.

For instance I personnaly think that the husband and the crazy person are not responsible. However I am conflicted about the killer because even if the law say he is not responsible in my country it is still hard to accept. I do not think they are any guilty in that list, just some minor to medium part of responsibility.

For instance, the first time I heard of that example the vast majority of the room thought the woman was the most responsible because she cheated.

Did she attempt to reach the police since, as you said, she knew who this person was and could be bothered to go to the ferryman twice?

Either way, you have to crane your neck pretty hard to not lay this at the feet of the crazy person and the woman.

[chazus]

The killer is responsible, and guilty, nothing more.

Everyone else has no idea the 'crazy person' is dangerous. How does she knows he's dangerous? Whatever insight she has, she can inform the police about (I know this steps outside the bounds of the question, technically.)

Honestly, it's a silly test that has too many holes in it. She could have simply stayed somewhere. Or used another bridge. Or a hundred other things. Asked her lover to come with her as an escort, whatever.

Either way, only one person is responsible, crazy or not. People of unsound mind are still responsible for everything they do, its just a matter of how we deal with it after the fact.

[medievalman1]

The crazy person > The woman.

The rest are not responsible.

[Sunseeker]

Couldn't she have just sat down for a while and waited it out?

[Blueobelisk]

"Responsible" means you create the situation. You're partially responsible for global warming if you spray hairspray into the air for even 1 second. That doesn't mean you should be punished or feel bad.

Likewise a lot of people in the story created the situation where the cheating whore died. It's not their fault that she died but if could they have reasonably prevented it and would it have been a huge inconvenience for them to do so is what makes them even somewhat partially responsible.

[lonely zergling]

The "crazy" person is responsible but not sure if he/she can get punished for the crime (depends on country and level/type of crazyness).

The woman is somewhat responsible too because she apparently knew the crazy person she saw on the bridge is "dangerous", she should have called the police.

[Ayla]

I suppose the "most" responsible was the ferryman. I consider it somewhat akin to a woman running away and asking to hide behind the counter while her captor is chasing her, and an employee refusing, leading to her death for running away.

But shit, absurd situation is absurd. None of the parties are really responsible.

[Dextroden]

"Responsible" means you create the situation. You're partially responsible for global warming if you spray hairspray into the air for even 1 second. That doesn't mean you should be punished or feel bad.

Likewise a lot of people in the story created the situation where the cheating whore died. It's not their fault that she died but if could they have reasonably prevented it and would it have been a huge inconvenience for them to do so is what makes them even somewhat partially responsible.

I know you said the husband isn't to blame. But that logic blames him for being boring and being the cause of her going to cheat.

[belfpala]

I know you said the husband isn't to blame. But that logic blames him for being boring and being the cause of her going to cheat.

The husband being boring didn't cause her to cheat, and didn't cause the location in which she was cheating.

She's 10% responsible -- should have asked the lover or friend if she could stay the night.
Crazy guy on bridge is 90% responsible.

[Blueobelisk]

I know you said the husband isn't to blame. But that logic blames him for being boring and being the cause of her going to cheat.

Hard to tell from the information but I doubt he told her to go across town to fuck some guy, multiple times. His responsibility weighs in close enough to 0 where, on this particular night, I don't think he could have stopped what was happening. There are a million other people who get weighed in at 0 too. Batman, for one, for not stopping the crime. NASA for not changing wind patterns to make the crazy guy fall off the bridge. The whore's high school coach for not teaching her to run fast enough to escape the situation. Etc.

[DrStiglit]

In terms of responsibility I would say it falls 100% on the woman. By deciding to cheat she put herself in the position to be on the other side of the river. By deciding to cross the bridge even knowing the danger she put herself in striking distance of the crazy person. Not going to the police was irresponsible. Not contacting her husband was irresponsible. Not staying on the other side of the river was irresponsible.

It's not like this was a surprise murder where a person jumped out of the ally. She had the knowledge and foresight to avoid the situation and she did not. It's easy to say the psycho was 100% responsible. But considering the situation she could have avoided it and did not. She put her fear of being caught cheating above her safety. That was her own fault.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you said the husband isn't to blame. But that logic blames him for being boring and being the cause of her going to cheat.

She should have done the responsible thing and left the husband. Not cheat on him.

[Deleted]

Did she attempt to reach the police since, as you said, she knew who this person was and could be bothered to go to the ferryman twice?

Either way, you have to crane your neck pretty hard to not lay this at the feet of the crazy person and the woman.

The story is blurred on purpose because it is hard to know the exact truth.
how did she know the man was dangerous ? Did she think he could murder her ?
Does the lover or the friend understood fully the situation ?

Couldn't she have just sat down for a while and waited it out?

She might wanted to come home before her husband so he would not suspect a thing.
My personnal order.

Small responsibility : The friend, I consider his moral responsibility is higher than the lover.
Small responsibility : the lover, he could have landed some money, he may be the lover but have moral responsibility
very small responsibility : the ferryman, we do not know if he jnew she was in mortal danger
Very small responsibility : The woman, not because she cheated but because she had a choice, staying and admitting her infidelity.
Not responsible at all : the husband, he is outside of the story
Not responsible legally but very conflicted morally : crazy person.

In this story none are trully responsible for me. The crazy person remains a hard decision for me, balancing between not legally guilty and totally guilty.
Though if he is not declared guilty he would be put in a mental institute, hopefully.

[dextersmith]

I'd say the crazy person can't be responsible for his actions, but the care givers who allowed him to be without supervision are.

...or the Church is responsible for acts of God.

[Deleted]

Honestly, it's a silly test that has too many holes in it. She could have simply stayed somewhere. Or used another bridge. Or a hundred other things. Asked her lover to come with her as an escort, whatever.

The holes are on purpose. You don't have all the elements yet you have to make a decision.
The story is as told. Maybe other things happen but we cannot be sure. The test is intented to show that they are no initial consensus and if the case is simple in apparence it's quite rare the everyone agree. The test is destined to explain the role of a jury. On some case the law is blurred and everyone have his own idea on the question, yet it is a consensus that is expected at the end.

For the other bridges there are none, as said before there are no tricks. the only two ways to cross the river is the bridge or the ferryman. She could have made other choices but she did not, the goal is not to bring her safe home but to diagnostic the case.

[Sunseeker]

The story is blurred on purpose because it is hard to know the exact truth.
how did she know the man was dangerous ? Did she think he could murder her ?
Does the lover or the friend understood fully the situation ?




She might wanted to come home before her husband so he would not suspect a thing.
My personnal order.

Small responsibility : The friend, I consider his moral responsibility is higher than the lover.
Small responsibility : the lover, he could have landed some money, he may be the lover but have moral responsibility
very small responsibility : the ferryman, we do not know if he jnew she was in mortal danger
Very small responsibility : The woman, not because she cheated but because she had a choice, staying and admitting her infidelity.
Not responsible at all : the husband, he is outside of the story
Not responsible legally but very conflicted morally : crazy person.

In this story none are trully responsible for me. The crazy person remains a hard decision for me, balancing between not legally guilty and totally guilty.
Though if he is not declared guilty he would be put in a mental institute, hopefully.

End of the day: the guy who killed her is responsible. Her friends, lovers, husband whatever have no responsibility for his actions. Maybe she has some blame for being in the "wrong part of town" but there's no law against that.

[Dextroden]

The holes are on purpose. You don't have all the elements yet you have to make a decision.
The story is as told. Maybe other things happen but we cannot be sure. The test is intented to show that they are no initial consensus and if the case is simple in apparence it's quite rare the everyone agree. The test is destined to explain the role of a jury. On some case the law is blurred and everyone have his own idea on the question, yet it is a consensus that is expected at the end.

For the other bridges there are none, as said before there are no tricks. the only two ways to cross the river is the bridge or the ferryman. She could have made other choices but she did not, the goal is not to bring her safe home but to diagnostic the case.

And the juries fill in the holes with questions and examination. Just because she didn't think about using another bridge doesn't mean someone who lives in that area isn't going to think about it.