Welcome to c/WouldYouRather, where we present you with the toughest, most ridiculous choices you never knew you had to make! Would you rather have a third arm that's only useful for picking your nose, or be able to talk to animals but only if they're wearing hats? Yeah, it's that kind of vibe. Come for the absurdity, stay because you've clearly got nothing better to do with your life.
Rules:
Option 1 is correctable.
Either the criminal changes their ways and stops being a criminal, or they continue committing crimes and can be caught again and punished.
Option 2 is final.
You've killed someone. Either you made the right choice and they deserved it, or you fucked up and killed someone innocent. Whichever it was, there's no going back.
Smarter men than me have said that it's better to let ten men go free who are guilty of the same thing the one innocent man is not guilty of, rather than imprisoning the one innocent man. So I'll go with just the one being set free.
Option 1 does not preclude the decisions, actions, or efforts of others to stop this killer. If I had the option of capturing him, surely others will as well.
Arguably, the question is poorly worded as Option 2 does not define what will happen to the guilty man. Will he be executed, or sent to jail? That is to ask: what does killing the innocent man gain us? Is it a question of "both must die, or neither"?
There is an implied third option here. If the only requirement of the second man be that he is innocent of the crime, assuming the person answering is as well, the third option is to make your choice — condemn the innocent man — and then switch places with him.
This guy philosophizes
Easy.
Option 1 - nothing in your rules specify that I (or somebody else) can't "fix" the problem posed by the "serial killer-rapist" straight after I set it free.
There is no way to fix Option 2 after it has occured.
In option 2, is it clear that's what's happening to everyone, or am I framing this guy? I guess it doesn't really change the trolley problem logic, but that would feel a lot worse.
Why not both?
Option 2 every time! The key is that in his honour you will also ensure the execution of those responsible for his wrongful conviction (this all being after the fact, of course). I am assuming conviction of a crime, justifying such punishment (like jaywalking), as that is implied in your question.
Is the first one a rapist of serial killers? That's how it reads to me. If so, yeah, let him out. Who cares about raped murderers?
Sexual violence as punishment is generally not considered a cool thing.
Haha it does read that way. I meant one man who's committed both crimes