Quote:
Originally Posted by Light_Yamagi_Kira
This question is just false dichotomy you're giving an unreasonable question with limited answer. All three of them are irrational if you ask me and have no good logic - what if I was able to decrease the number of suspects to 10, or 20. Now, that of course would be from L's perspective, if I was looking from Kira's I would simply... wait.. yes I would wait, unlike Light, I am actually not corrupted by the thought of power. This murder you claim would slip up and if I kill all of them I have more casualties than wanted. Too assume I will kill the murder before he reaches the 50 death toll would make most logical sense that I begin, after study, killing who I think is most suspicion one by one. Say I am mistaken, a human act and I kill two, or three people before I actually got to the murder. Well that might not be morally right, but at least I killed the murder, saved many potential lives at the lowest casualty rate possible. That is how I would answer your question, even though it's very unreasonable. Don't ask me for no more favors.
|
I thank you for your opinion,
though you did not reply how you would act after L narrowed the suspects to 10-20. 10-20 is not 1.
"killing who I think is most suspicion" entails you already narrowed the suspects down to 3 or fewer. Unless you believe in potshots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafriel
An actual detective would study the previous murders, find a link and catch the murderer without using underhanded means.
That way he would stop the murders at the cost of his hard work.
|
Well, my question has hidden implications.
Option 1 and 2 entails the sacrifice of a minority to ensure the safety of a majority.
Whether you imprison/kill 1, 49 or 100, you accepted the option of [Using "Evil" to kill "Evil"]
Option 3 is what most investigators in our world do. Many follow it because of Law, "Justice", fear of losing their job, etc.
Yet, you must accept that it is not absolute because corruption, terrorism and many acts of atrocity are rampant
Can you ensure you can identify the murderer without using underhanded means and before the murderer kills another?
How many will need to suffer or die before you can obtain enough evidence to identify the murderer?
0 death? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Or perhaps the murderer will never get caught?
Please reflect on these points deeply, Kafriel.