Punishing an innocent to keep the peace?
On the axis: The meaning of punishment · punishing an innocent
If punishment is worth only its effects, sacrificing an innocent to avert a greater harm sometimes seems required: but is condemning one who did nothing still punishment, or the very negation of justice?
This problem is brought out by the thought experiment Punishing an innocent to keep the peace?:
A small town is on the brink of a riot. The crowd, convinced that a murder by an outsider will go unpunished, threatens to burn everything down, killing several people, unless a culprit is handed over. The sheriff knows that none of his suspects did anything, but he holds a man he could credibly have convicted. By sacrificing him he would likely save several lives and restore order; by refusing, he honors the truth, but lets the carnage happen.
H. J. McCloskey (1957)
In his place, would you hand over the innocent to save the others? And if punishment is justified only by its effects, what still forbids doing so?
Your choice above is recorded in your profile. See my profile →
Anchors: McCloskey · Rawls
leads to: Criterion of right action