The deliberations were interesting, and the whole process left me wondering about the morality of the system. Because it appears that justice and morality are two very different things. Should they be? This was actually a major sticking point in our deliberations. We were deadlocked.
There's a classic psychology scenario (used, I believe, to understand through their answer what stage of moral reasoning a subject has reached) that goes something like this:
A man's wife is very very sick. Without a certain very expensive medicine she will die. The man does not have enough money for the medicine. Should he steal it?
My modifications to the scenario assume that he does steal the medicine (or, since he's innocent until proven guilty, is found with the medicine in his possession).
- Should he be found guilty of the crime?
- What if he first talked to the owner of the store, who refused to help him out, put him on a payment plan, etc? Is he still guilty if he steals it?
- What if it turns out the owner of the store was actually an undercover cop who could have given him the medicine, but wanted to make an arrest?
- What if the undercover cop says the guy stole the medicine while the man says the cop opened the door and told him it was "on the house?"
My take on this is that in only the fourth case is there cause for reasonable doubt. But I don't like it.