I want to get your responses to this difficult situation:
This concerns a medium sized town divided in two parts by a river. There is only one bridge across the river. Next to the bridge on one side is a tribunal and a gallows. The law there states that if you cross the bridge you must truthfully state what you will do on the other side. Violators of this law were hanged on the spot. Despite this very tough law, many people crossed the bridge every day.
One man when questioned by the tribunal, says that he will hang on the gallows.
Now, the tibunal is completely confounded. If they hang him, then he spoke truthfully and should not have been hanged. If they let him free, he spoke falsely, and deserves to be hanged.
What do you think should be done?
He spoke the truth, but he should be hanged for 2 reasons:
1. He asked for it.
2. Hang him for fun
But, what if he lied?
If he lied, then they would hang him. If he knows he is going to be hung, then that means he is going to commit a heinous crime on the other side, resulting in the consequence of him being hung. Because the law system cannot just hang him, or waste their time following him (it may take him months or years before he does the crime), any preemptive action is impossible. They are forced to just let him go, and if he tries to return to the other side prior to being hung, he will be hung as a result of his lying.
He didn't say when he was going to be hung though, so as long as he didn't ever cross the bridge again, he would be set free.
No one said how Evil the people there.
I think that they will hang him.
And if, for some strange reason, he shouldn't be hung, the will hang him anyway.
He shouldn't be hung at all. His foot should be broken in by a sledge hammer, that way the town won't feel bad, and it'll teach him not to be a smartass again.
Simple. You don't let him cross the bridge.
Catch 22 situation huh?, though I didn't really understand what's happening, could you try and explain for my benifit (because I am very slow) whats happening?
Sorry I re-read and I got it now, erm.. what would you do, but who would say that they would hang on the gallows, pretty stupid thing to say personally, I suppose you've got to hang him;
If you hang him he will of truthfully said what he will do, and he will have forfilled it, he just will never get back and will have already passed the bridge, so it's his own fault for saying that he will hang really?
There is a loophole in this. There is nothing saying that the gallows is not used (are not used???) for anything else, so you can hang the guy if he wants to be hanged... nothing stopping you.
Seeing as he says he's gonna hang, The tribunal should let him go free, and if he doesn't hang himself they should hang him.
Or they should just let him go free to spite him.... or themselves....
Or maybe a banana peel would do the trick.
This is all very confusing
the original statement does not grant immunity with truth.
They should just hang him somewhere else, simple.
hang him off the bridge.
Then he's a liar...hang him. And I agree, hang him just for kicks
abolish the law. Unjust laws ought not be enforced
there shouldn't be even a 'hanging' law or what we call death penalty.. nobody has the right over others' lives..
Relax dude....read the post again, it was a hypothetical situation...it is not a real place. The author was looking for opinions on a difficult situation, not expressing a real place or events. You gotta lighten up a little my friend