NationStates

Caracasus wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Yup. Poison is only really an effective means of offing someone if they aren't aware of you. The fact that the Judge in question is already preparing sentencing would mean that the means of killing them would need to be far more cunning. The only way to actually administer poison to them would be to get a job at their favorite restaurant and interfere with their order. But that option isn't practical since there is only a matter of days to execute the plot.


Prisoners in totalitarian regimes have sometimes written things on the toilet paper and had it smuggled out, so that's an option too.

There are several guards loyal to my cause, thankfully.

How do you know? You know how risky that would be to find that out?

Please consider the following very simple hypothetical:

No, I won't

In all seriousness, I would probably stay the 20 years (and try to escape) because a chance of justice is a chance of justice

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Please consider the following very simple hypothetical:

No, I won't

In all seriousness, I would probably stay the 20 years (and try to escape) because a chance of justice is a chance of justice

When 20 years of your life are stolen there is no justice - that wrong can't be made right.

Page wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:No, I won't

In all seriousness, I would probably stay the 20 years (and try to escape) because a chance of justice is a chance of justice

When 20 years of your life are stolen there is no justice - that wrong can't be made right.

That's why I said I will try to escape.

Considering most "Authoritarian" countries nowadays are tin-pot dictatorships in Africa or The Middle East, they'll probably have a mud hut with a simple gate as a "prison"

Infected Mushroom wrote:Please consider the following very simple hypothetical:

No.

Give me the "overthrow shoddy justice system" option

Either attempt to start a revolution against this unjust justice system and dictatorial government or go to the US Canadian, or UK Embassy and request asylum and safe passage from the country.

I won't confess. The problem is that I'm going to have a horrible reputation after jail and I can't just live like a lone wolf. A difference of 10 or 20 years is not going to change my fate so I'd rather take the 20 years and hope that my luck prevails.

In this situation, I'm most probably screwed because 3% is such a low chance but if I'm proven innocent, I can at least end up being showered with praise and job offers from sympathizers! There is a good chance I'll rile up some people and have them doubt the government's capability.

Vassenor wrote:A proper authoritarian regime wouldn't even wait for you to actually confess. They'd just say you had confessed (depending on the nature of things possibly even saying you'd confessed to crimes committed before the regime came to power), then gulag you for the rest of your days.

If that's the case, then why did totalitarian countries such as the Soviet Union torture prisoners into signing confessions 'admitting' guilt? Utterly breaking the prisoner into confessing and applauding their own death sentence had much more usefulness to authoritarian countries.

You have been accused of a very serious, vile, and stigmatising crime. You are in fact innocent and have been framed but no one believes you.

So my Tinder date regretted lacklustre sexual relations. And because we live under the Great and Benevolent Rule of Matriarch Gloria Steinem, there's no due process.

Therefore my choice will be for the unforeseen Option C: write a suicide note declaring myself a martyr to the MRA movement and hang myself in my cell.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Vassenor wrote:A proper authoritarian regime wouldn't even wait for you to actually confess. They'd just say you had confessed (depending on the nature of things possibly even saying you'd confessed to crimes committed before the regime came to power), then gulag you for the rest of your days.

If that's the case, then why did totalitarian countries such as the Soviet Union torture prisoners into signing confessions 'admitting' guilt? Utterly breaking the prisoner into confessing and applauding their own death sentence had much more usefulness to authoritarian countries.

you mean in the Soviet Union, they actually paid people (professionals) who on a regular basis tortured people to break them down and extract official confessions?

did they have trade schools that taught this material?

I refuse, I will state that either way I will be arrested and my will does not matter.

Aclion wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:Please consider the following very simple hypothetical:

No.

In all seriousness though no I would not confess. IT would create complications 20 years down the line when I murder a bunch of the people responsible for my false accusation.

Tragic irony or poetic justice?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
If that's the case, then why did totalitarian countries such as the Soviet Union torture prisoners into signing confessions 'admitting' guilt? Utterly breaking the prisoner into confessing and applauding their own death sentence had much more usefulness to authoritarian countries.

you mean in the Soviet Union, they actually paid people (professionals) who on a regular basis tortured people to break them down and extract official confessions?

did they have trade schools that taught this material?

It doesn't require specialization to be able to apply enough torture to make people break and sign confessions, especially with the sadistic sort of people in the NKVD who were granted free reign by Stalin. In cases such as Nikolai Bukharin, their families were threatened if they did not sign the confessions admitting to absurd allegations of conspiracies with Mensheviks, Trotskyists, and Fascists.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
If that's the case, then why did totalitarian countries such as the Soviet Union torture prisoners into signing confessions 'admitting' guilt? Utterly breaking the prisoner into confessing and applauding their own death sentence had much more usefulness to authoritarian countries.

you mean in the Soviet Union, they actually paid people (professionals) who on a regular basis tortured people to break them down and extract official confessions?

did they have trade schools that taught this material?

You could ask Erdogan if this is a career you would like ? He still needs them.

I'm not sure if I should clarify/edit

but it was intended/implied that the crime you have been accused and convicted of is something that would be considered vile and stigmatising even in democratic countries and the evidence to convict you was not bogus (in fact, the whole trial was conducted in a relatively proper process in the sense that the evidence appeared to be heavily against you); only you are aware that you have been framed but it doesn't look that way (and it doesn't look that way reasonably) to anyone else pretty much except those who would take your word

that is to say, you're not convicted of a political crime but something closer on the spectrum to (or on) sexual/physical assault and the process to convict you was entirely legit because the framer did such a good job that most courts on Earth would have found your guilty

do you think I need to clarify this in OP?

yes you should

Infected Mushroom wrote:I'm not sure if I should clarify/edit

but it was intended/implied that the crime you have been accused and convicted of is something that would be considered vile and stigmatising even in democratic countries and the evidence to convict you was not bogus (in fact, the whole trial was conducted in a relatively proper process in the sense that the evidence appeared to be heavily against you); only you are aware that you have been framed but it doesn't look that way (and it doesn't look that way reasonably) to anyone else pretty much except those who would take your word

that is to say, you're not convicted of a political crime but something closer on the spectrum to (or on) sexual/physical assault and the process to convict you was entirely legit because the framer did such a good job that most courts on Earth would have found your guilty

do you think I need to clarify this in OP?

IM, that completely changes the entire scenario:

"A corrupt government has you up on bogus charges to which you are forced to confess" (which was the original assumption) is utterly different to "A bogus government has you up on charges that look pretty legit, and you'd probably be found guilty in any democratic country in the land even without being forced to confess".

It's not the same scenario that I -- and possibly others -- thought we were playing.

Frankly, it feels like changing the rules late in the game.

Here is your original -- to quote you -- simple hypothetical:

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Please consider the following very simple hypothetical:

You live in a fictional authoritarian country.

You have been accused of a very serious, vile, and stigmatising crime. You are in fact innocent and have been framed but no one believes you.

Upon being found guilty, you are told that you can choose to either Admit Guilt ("Confess") or insist upon your innocence.

If you "Confess" you will serve 10 years in prison. However, you will be required to issue a formal and public confession that will be recorded and broadcasted nationwide to the government's satisfaction.

If you do not "Confess," you will serve 20 years in prison.

There is one more consideration:

You know that if you do not Confess, there is a 3 percent chance that after serving your 20 years your innocence will be proven and brought to the public's attention.

If you "Confess," a supernatural mechanism will instantly lower that 3 percent chance of proving your innocence post-sentence to 0 percent. In other words, you will serve your 10 years and be forever stigmatised as a very vile criminal.

In either situation, you will serve some prison time and you will be treated with a great deal of contempt and ostracisation even after you get out; the rest of your life is in all likelihood ruined (quite literally) if you aspire to something like the American Dream.

So do you Confess or do you not Confess? Please justify your decision and discuss your reasoning.

There is no mention that there is evidence that will stand up in any court in any ordinary country. If there was such evidence, there would be no need for compelled public confessions and that would be a separate hypothetical, independent of duration of prison sentences and hellhole countries ("Would you confess to a crime of which you are innocent, knowing that all evidence points to your guilt").

The original question was utterly different: you are being railroaded into making a public confession for a crime you did not do in an authoritarian hellhole. Do you confess and take a shorter sentence or deny it and take the longer sentence?

The Free Joy State wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:I'm not sure if I should clarify/edit

but it was intended/implied that the crime you have been accused and convicted of is something that would be considered vile and stigmatising even in democratic countries and the evidence to convict you was not bogus (in fact, the whole trial was conducted in a relatively proper process in the sense that the evidence appeared to be heavily against you); only you are aware that you have been framed but it doesn't look that way (and it doesn't look that way reasonably) to anyone else pretty much except those who would take your word

that is to say, you're not convicted of a political crime but something closer on the spectrum to (or on) sexual/physical assault and the process to convict you was entirely legit because the framer did such a good job that most courts on Earth would have found your guilty

do you think I need to clarify this in OP?

IM, that completely changes the entire scenario:

"A corrupt government has you up on bogus charges to which you are forced to confess" (which was the original assumption) is utterly different to "A bogus government has you up on charges that look pretty legit, and you'd probably be found guilty in any democratic country in the land even without being forced to confess".

It's not the same scenario that I -- and possibly others -- thought we were playing.

Frankly, it feels like changing the rules late in the game.

Here is your original -- to quote you -- simple hypothetical:

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Please consider the following very simple hypothetical:

You live in a fictional authoritarian country.

You have been accused of a very serious, vile, and stigmatising crime. You are in fact innocent and have been framed but no one believes you.

Upon being found guilty, you are told that you can choose to either Admit Guilt ("Confess") or insist upon your innocence.



There is one more consideration:



In either situation, you will serve some prison time and you will be treated with a great deal of contempt and ostracisation even after you get out; the rest of your life is in all likelihood ruined (quite literally) if you aspire to something like the American Dream.

So do you Confess or do you not Confess? Please justify your decision and discuss your reasoning.

There is no mention that there is evidence that will stand up in any court in any ordinary country. If there was such evidence, there would be no need for compelled public confessions and that would be a separate hypothetical, independent of duration of prison sentences and hellhole countries ("Would you confess to a crime of which you are innocent, knowing that all evidence points to your guilt").

The original question was utterly different: you are being railroaded into making a public confession for a crime you did not do in an authoritarian hellhole. Do you confess and take a shorter sentence or deny it and take the longer sentence?

I said the trial took place in an authoritarian country and that you were framed, but I never said the evidence against you is "complete bogus"

why would you assume that I meant, "it was all a kangaroo court, this was a mostly political conviction"?

even in countries like Russia and China, when you're convicted there's usually evidence required no?

as to the nature of the crime, I should have been more clear but "vile" and "stigmatising" was not intended to be country specific (ex you're a "political dissident" against the party) but it was meant to be such worldwide (so a violent crime of substance)

...

I totally understand how you might be mislead so now I understand there IS a need to clarify?

^

I mean, yes the country is an authoritarian country and this practice of lowering your sentence if you "confess" after being convicted is a bit odd (but it might not be an economic hellhole)

I definitely meant for the process to seem somewhat legit (in other words, because of the third party framer's clever actions, you appear very much like the guilty party)

Hystaria wrote:yes you should

okay I'll get to it later

thanks

Infected Mushroom wrote:^

I mean, yes the country is an authoritarian country and this practice of lowering your sentence if you "confess" after being convicted is a bit odd (but it might not be an economic hellhole)

I definitely meant for the process to seem somewhat legit (in other words, because of the third party framer's clever actions, you appear very much like the guilty party)

This third party was never mentioned before. That these accusations would hold up anywhere else has not been mentioned before.

As for the rest, here's a hint for the future:

You say "authoritarian" and "public confessions", and people assume the following: North Korea, Orwell's Oceania... political convictions, bogus charges, liberal applications of batons to skulls if people resist.

If you'd wanted a straightforward "would you confess if you'd been framed and look guilty", you needed less worldbuilding.

Authoritarian governments have certain tropes. You have to accept that.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:^

I mean, yes the country is an authoritarian country and this practice of lowering your sentence if you "confess" after being convicted is a bit odd (but it might not be an economic hellhole)

I definitely meant for the process to seem somewhat legit (in other words, because of the third party framer's clever actions, you appear very much like the guilty party)

This third party was never mentioned before. That these accusations would hold up anywhere else has not been mentioned before.

As for the rest, here's a hint for the future:

You say "authoritarian" and "public confessions", and people assume the following: North Korea, Orwell's Oceania... political convictions, bogus charges, liberal applications of batons to skulls if people resist.

If you'd wanted a straightforward "would you confess if you'd been framed and look guilty", you needed less worldbuilding.

Authoritarian governments have certain tropes. You have to accept that.

Okay I understand the source of the confusion now.

I've added a simple clarifier in the OP:

The evidence used to convict you is very strong because the third party who has framed you did a very good job; you likely would have been convicted under any system and everyone believes (reasonably) that you are guilty. The crime you have been accused of is considered serious, vile, and stigmatising worldwide.

I honestly don't foresee that large numbers of posters would change their votes either way but this detail just adds an intended extra layer of complexity to the whole thing; do you disagree though?

I can see where you're coming from and why on a quick reading it might seem that I was implying there was a kangaroo court and no evidence against you except for the confession

Confessing is not an option. I didn't do it and I don't care if anybody else believes me or not; I'll die before I say otherwise.