A very hypothetical question ..don't get mad or try to reason it

[Jayburner]

Say you could capture one of 2 criminals.

1 kills 12 seniors a month.

1 rapes 6 children a month.

Which would you capture?

[Rocket Surgeon]

The second one.

[razski]

Obvious answer, the child rapist needs to be captured.

[McCulloch]

Second one. Protect the children first.

[Darnash]

The rapist. And I am using reasoning: assuming that the rapist doesn't actually kill the children, they will grow up to either be extremely damaged, or perhaps even become molesters themselves, which in turn hurts other people. Utilitarianism and hedonic calculus and all that good stuff.... Catching the Senior killer would provide short term happiness, catching the rapist greater long term happiness.

[drwelfare]

#1, since the 2nd one actually has consensual sex with 15year olds who lie and say they 18, but in the eyes of the law its rape.

[Gombadoh]

both are morally abhorent, someone can be considered a senior at 65 (imo atleast) which is rather young in todays' world.

I refuse to choose... get both!

[xanderd]

Capture the rapist. He is hurting and traumatizing children, which would lead into their adulthood.

The seniors are about to meet the reaper anyway, plus 12 a month is shortening our population.

Plus the cut in social security pay-outs MIGHT slightly improve the future economy.

[Lyriok]

I would go with the rapist.

Don't mean to sound like an arse but the seniors had their run and it will screw up the childs entire life or possibly end it since some rapists may kill after the act. Or even influence the child to do the same once older.

[Deleted]

Interesting question. Is it to late too put up a poll?

[lopk]

First one. I don't need to give rationale, remember?

...Which is pretty silly. The point of a forum is to discuss not just what, but why. If you're taking away the why...

And that's why I say the first one.

[Jayburner]

You can reason why and all that. Just making sure I didn't go over the line with the mods with this thread.

[Joathen]

The rapist. And I am using reasoning: assuming that the rapist doesn't actually kill the children, they will grow up to either be extremely damaged, or perhaps even become molesters themselves, which in turn hurts other people. Utilitarianism and hedonic calculus and all that good stuff.... Catching the Senior killer would provide short term happiness, catching the rapist greater long term happiness.

This.
/10char

[Deleted]

Any sane person will choose #2

[Mozu]

The first one. Both deserve to be caught, but one is murdering and one is not. Age doesn't matter.

Any sane person will choose #2

Any sane person will choose #1

(cwatididthar?)

[Deleted]

Any sane person will choose #2

Ain't that a bit harsh on anyone who will choose #1?

[Total Crica]

rape leaves people scarred mentally - and since it is young people, that is the time they form their views of life and how to handle it - which could lead to them handling life in a vicious way because of the rape leading to MORE suffering...i say the second criminal should be caught first...

the killer is killing off people who already lived out their lives much more so then the younger people have so i think they are not as worth saving first as the mentality of the young people...plus MORE suffering can not be caused by a dead person like can be caused by a mentally scared raped person...

[moaningwood]

Most seniors I know are packing heat. Unlike most children. Get #2. Eventually #1 will get his ass shot.

[Rocket Surgeon]

#1, since the 2nd one actually has consensual sex with 15year olds who lie and say they 18, but in the eyes of the law its rape.

Well played.

[drwelfare]

That wasn't the question... the question was someone who kills, or someone who rapes, not someone who has consensual sex with people who are underage.

Law calls in rape, so it is rape.