阿祖生意失敗，負債纍纍，決定自殺，一大清早便在自己最愛喝的十八年陳Glenlivet裏放了毒藥，以示必死的決心，待處理了一切死前要交帶的事情後，晚上回家一邊喝毒酒，一邊聽Bruckner第八交響曲，悲壯而高雅地離開人世。
阿占是阿祖的情敵，計劃謀殺阿祖。他不知道阿祖已決定自殺，就在阿祖離家後不久，潛入阿祖家裏；他知道阿祖每晚必喝一點Glenlivet，便在酒裏下毒。湊巧他用的也是阿祖在酒裏已落了的毒藥，這藥無色無嗅，且毒性極強，在那半瓶Glenlivet裏只須落四、五滴，就算喝一小口酒，也必死無疑。阿祖已落了五滴，阿占當然不知，再落五滴，然後抹去所有留下的指紋，保證不會有半點蛛絲馬跡才離去。
是夜，阿祖喝了毒酒，Bruckner第八交響曲的第一樂章還未播完，便毒發了，在一片響亮激昂的銅管和弦樂聲中抽搐死去。
問題：阿祖之死，是自殺還是謀殺？
（阿占意圖謀殺，這是亳無疑問的，無須討論。）
呢個問題真係諗爆頭，我地響之前的spring seminar（主題是counterfactual theory of causation）都討論過。我基本上會認為那是謀殺。可惜我馬上就要出趟遠門，遲啲返嚟先同你講啦，，，，
回覆刪除CYC,
回覆刪除好，一路順風。
CYC,
回覆刪除這個問題和例子，其實是我自己想出來的，原來已有人討論過類似的問題。
依事件發生時序來說，阿占的謀殺發生在後，事件是謀殺案，（技術上說阿占干擾了阿祖先前的自殺）。
回覆刪除如果事件發生次序倒過來，阿占下毒在先，但阿祖再下毒自殺，事件歸類自殺案，阿占則犯意圖謀殺。
CYC,
回覆刪除祝學業[術]進步。
It is suicide, not homicide ...
回覆刪除阿祖 is going to die no matter what 阿占 has done ... that is, 阿占's action is irrelevant in the whole case ... that is, his action doesn't cause 阿祖's death ...
KH
The moment he seriously '決定自殺', part of him has already died...
回覆刪除catcat votes for suicide
Wong,
回覆刪除>好，一路順風
唔記得話，我坐的是飛機……
我剛才當你這裡舉的是從causal preemption中引伸而來的例子。
Yan，
謝謝！
（我一直好好奇，你是在做什麼research的？）
自殺
回覆刪除有沒阿占的謀殺,阿祖都系會死,阿占的謀殺只是extra
CYC,
回覆刪除說來慚愧，我工餘做的是維根斯坦研究。只有很少的苖頭，甚至不值一提。但希望時候一到可以進研究院。
catcat in a rational mode :)
回覆刪除Jo has the motivation, plan and related action to kill Jim.
The issue in question if it is consider as “murder”? It depends if we see his action has caused Jim’s death.
Thanks to CYC suggesting counterfactual theory of causation.
May I ask we consider via Hitchcock’s structural equations theory, would that mean if we hold Jim’s action as fixed variable, Jo’s action could be convicted as murder? Would most court regard the assumptions too remote or reasonable instead?
Wong Sir,
回覆刪除Please excuse me for asking one more non-related question, as i am a bit disturbed after watching "Inception"?
What do you all think? In particular, how would you agree / disagree if Dom Cobb has "caused" the death of his wife?
自殺與謀殺是否mutually exclusive？
回覆刪除Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//依事件發生時序來說，阿占的謀殺發生在後，事件是謀殺案，（技術上說阿占干擾了阿祖先前的自殺）。
- 阿祖先落毒，他的自殺行動可說是由在酒裏落毒開始，所以可說他自殺在先。
//如果事件發生次序倒過來，阿占下毒在先，但阿祖再下毒自殺//
- 不明白。
KH,
回覆刪除//阿祖 is going to die no matter what 阿占 has done ... that is, 阿占's action is irrelevant in the whole case ... that is, his action doesn't cause 阿祖's death ... //
- Joe would still have been killed by Jim's poison even if Joe had not put poison in the Scotch. And in fact Joe did swallow some of Jim's poison.
匿名,
回覆刪除//自殺. 有沒有阿占的謀殺,阿祖都系會死,阿占的謀殺只是extra//
- Please see my response to KH above.
自殺+意圖謀殺 掛﹖
回覆刪除依個係法律定哲學問題﹖哈哈....
catcat,
回覆刪除//It depends if we see his action has caused Jim’s death. //
- True, but it is precisely this question that is so difficult to answer.
//May I ask we consider via Hitchcock’s structural equations theory, would that mean if we hold Jim’s action as fixed variable, Jo’s action could be convicted as murder? Would most court regard the assumptions too remote or reasonable instead?//
- Sorry, can't answer your question; I am not familiar with Hitchcock's theory. However, I am pretty sure that Jim's action cannot be referred to as a variable, fixed or not.
I was surprised that you are familiar with Hitchcock's theory of causation, which only people who work on the concept of causation would be interested in.
Meshi,
回覆刪除//自殺與謀殺是否mutually exclusive？//
- 如果「被謀殺」蘊涵「被他人所殺」，而「被他人所殺」蘊涵「不是自殺」，那應該是mutually exclusive。
艾力,
回覆刪除//依個係法律定哲學問題﹖哈哈....//
- Both.
catcat,
回覆刪除//What do you all think? In particular, how would you agree / disagree if Dom Cobb has "caused" the death of his wife?//
- I haven't seen the movie. Too busy. Will wait for the DVD.
構成謀殺罪的要素在不同法律體系中或有所不同，但一般都包括以下定義：
回覆刪除* 殺人的行為是有預謀的，行凶者在明知有關行為會使他人死亡仍然作出有關行為
* 即使並非親自下手，主使者也犯了謀殺罪
* 即使沒有特定的謀殺對象，但在有關行為（例如在人口密集的地方縱火、引爆爆炸品）在理性認知下可能造成他人死亡的情況下作出該等行為，導致他人死亡
阿占有意殺阿袓->謀殺罪會成立
匿名,
回覆刪除問題在最後一個條件：「導致他人死亡」。阿祖之死是否阿占導致的？
Wong,
回覆刪除//問題在最後一個條件：「導致他人死亡」。阿祖之死是否阿占導致的？//
既然你已說明五滴毒液已足夠使人死亡，而阿祖喝的酒包含了阿占的五滴毒液，那當然可以說他的行為導致他人死亡，因為那五滴毒液已是導致死亡的充分條件。
再設想下去，假如阿祖阿占兩人不是各下了五滴毒液，而是各下了兩滴半（可能他們誤以為兩滴半已足夠奪命），則他們每人下的分量都不足以殺人，但最終阿祖卻死了。這會否算是既非自殺又非他殺？
Meshi,
回覆刪除//既然你已說明五滴毒液已足夠使人死亡，而阿祖喝的酒包含了阿占的五滴毒液，那當然可以說他的行為導致他人死亡，因為那五滴毒液已是導致死亡的充分條件。//
- 情況比你說的複雜一點，因為阿祖自己落的五滴已足以令他死亡，雖然他喝的酒包含了阿占落的毒，但即使不包含，他還是會死的，所以他的死是否阿占導致，並不如你說的那麼清楚。
//假如阿祖阿占兩人不是各下了五滴毒液，而是各下了兩滴半（可能他們誤以為兩滴半已足夠奪命），則他們每人下的分量都不足以殺人，但最終阿祖卻死了。這會否算是既非自殺又非他殺？//
- 這情況比你說的容易定奪一點。如果沒有阿占落的兩滴半，阿祖便不會死，所以可說阿祖之死是阿占導致的。打個比方，假如你已受內傷，卻不致死，我打你一記七傷拳，其實我功力不深，正常情況下一拳打不死人，但你因有內傷，捱我一拳便一命嗚呼，很明顯，你是被我打死的。
Wong,
回覆刪除我想到有兩點請您指教：首先，我認為在這個例子，落毒先後並不能左右誰是真兇的判斷，原因在於致死的關鍵是喝酒這個動作，是這個動作啟動了「死亡程序」；至於落毒，是「死亡程序」前的預備工作。問題是，到了喝那個階段，祖和占的下的毒液已經混在一起，不管是祖先下毒，還是占先下毒，又還是兩人「梅花間竹」下毒，結果到喝時的那杯致死的酒都是沒分別的。
此外，帖子所提出的問題似乎假定了殺人兇手只能有一個人；是因為兇手只能是同指，自殺和他殺才構成mutually exclusive的關係。但為甚麼有這樣的假定呢？如果我們不排拒任何凶案都可能有多於一個兇手，那麼這案子我們可以說有兩個兇手：一個是祖自己，一個是占，那麼這案子就同時是自殺也是他殺了。
//- 這情況比你說的容易定奪一點。如果沒有阿占落的兩滴半，阿祖便不會死，所以可說阿祖之死是阿占導致的。打個比方，假如你已受內傷，卻不致死，我打你一記七傷拳，其實我功力不深，正常情況下一拳打不死人，但你因有內傷，捱我一拳便一命嗚呼，很明顯，你是被我打死的。 //
這個比方可能跟所討論的個案有點不同，在比方裡，受傷是分先後的（先有內傷，再中七傷拳），但在個案裡卻是同時中了祖和占所下的毒。
Wong Sir, yes I’m interested.
回覆刪除Meshi,
catcat也想到有兩點請您指教：
1) // 落毒先後並不能左右誰是真兇的判斷，原因在於致死的關鍵是喝酒這個動作，是這個動作啟動了「死亡程序」；//
為什麼喝酒這個動作"啟動"instead of“由在酒裏落毒開始?”
To me, it sounds like "出拳"是預備工作,"不躲開打中" 是致死的關鍵... a bit strange???
2) “至於落毒，是「死亡程序」前的預備工作。”
Would“蓄意落毒引致他人預期的死亡”qualify 蓄意謀殺?
(Assume Jo's 預備工作 satisfies the reasonable foreseeability test)
//（阿占意圖謀殺，這是亳無疑問的，無須討論。） //
回覆刪除Oh.. sorry missed this line :)
Withdraw second question above. thanks
Meshi,
回覆刪除//落毒先後並不能左右誰是真兇的判斷//
- 這個我同意，因為即使阿占先落毒，問題仍是一樣。
//原因在於致死的關鍵是喝酒這個動作，是這個動作啟動了「死亡程序」//
- 為甚麼？是因為做了這個動作就必死？那也未必呀！阿祖有可能一喝下酒立即嘔吐大作，將毒也嘔出來了。你那所謂「死亡程序」究竟是從那一點開始，其實並不清楚。
//至於落毒，是「死亡程序」前的預備工作。//
- 這個所謂「預備工作」，在一般情況下就是決定誰是兇手的關鍵，為甚麼在這個例子會變成不相干呢？
//帖子所提出的問題似乎假定了殺人兇手只能有一個人//
- 沒有這樣的假定。即使自殺和他殺是mutually exclusive，如果你有一個合理的說法解釋我們為何應說阿祖和阿占同是兇手，我們可以不叫這種情況「自殺」或「他殺」，而給它一個新的名稱。問題是，你沒有這樣一個合理的說法。
//在比方裡，受傷是分先後的（先有內傷，再中七傷拳），但在個案裡卻是同時中了祖和占所下的毒。//
- 可以說是先有內傷，再中七傷拳，也可以說你中我拳的時候，同時身有內傷。要令比方更工整，我可以說七傷拳令你內傷加劇致死，那便和多加兩滴半毒液令酒中的毒加劇而足以致命的情況一樣了。
catcat,
回覆刪除請參考我對Meshi的回應。
catcat,
回覆刪除//為什麼喝酒這個動作"啟動"instead of“由在酒裏落毒開始?”
To me, it sounds like "出拳"是預備工作,"不躲開打中" 是致死的關鍵... a bit strange???//
如果不喝，那酒再毒，也沒有凶案發生，更談不上有自殺／他殺的疑問了。
Meshi,
回覆刪除Can you re-post? I deleted your duplicate comments and you did the same, and now your post was gone!
Meshi,
回覆刪除Don't worry, I managed to find your original post:
//- 為甚麼？是因為做了這個動作就必死？那也未必呀！阿祖有可能一喝下酒立即嘔吐大作，將毒也嘔出來了。你那所謂「死亡程序」究竟是從那一點開始，其實並不清楚。//
沒關係，我們可以把「死亡程序」（或者更準確一點，應該叫「死亡的關鍵時刻」）推遲到毒液已進入體內並開始發作的時候。不管怎樣，到了那個階段，「祖和占的下的毒液已經混在一起，不管是祖先下毒，還是占先下毒，又還是兩人『梅花間竹』下毒，結果到那時的那杯致死的酒都是沒分別的。」
//- 這個所謂「預備工作」，在一般情況下就是決定誰是兇手的關鍵，為甚麼在這個例子會變成不相干呢？//
我沒有「預備工作」是不相干的意思（否則我就應該很清楚地指出阿祖是自殺不是他殺了，因為我所謂的「死亡程序」──喝酒──這動作是阿祖做的）。相反，因為祖和占都參與了「預備工作」，所以他們兩個都是兇手。
我只是指出，在「預備工作」中，下毒的先後次序並不是決定誰是兇手的關鍵。
//如果你有一個合理的說法解釋我們為何應說阿祖和阿占同是兇手，我們可以不叫這種情況「自殺」或「他殺」，而給它一個新的名稱。問題是，你沒有這樣一個合理的說法。//
我的理由是：
一、既然你已說明五滴毒液已足夠使人死亡，而阿祖喝的酒包含了自己的五滴毒液，那當然可以說他的行為導致自己死亡，因為那五滴毒液已是導致死亡的充分條件。
二、阿祖的五滴毒液和阿占的五滴毒液都分別是導致阿祖死亡的充分條件，兩者之間並無矛盾之處。所以阿祖之死同時是自殺也是他殺。
三、您在前帖中提及「但即使不包含(阿占下的毒)，他還是會死的」似乎並不構成對第一點的反駁。假設「阿占下毒」是p，「阿祖死亡」是q，前者是後者的充分條件，故我提的是p->q。你提的「不包含」，指的是~p->q。兩條式並無矛盾，可以並存。
（如果加上「阿祖下毒」為r，則我前三點想提出的關係就是(pVr)->q，p和r都分別是q的充分條件，而且p和r可以同真。）
8/16/2010 12:57 上午
Meshi,
回覆刪除喝了太多酒，有睡意，明天才答你。
Thanks Wong Sir & Meshi,
回覆刪除//如果不喝，那酒再毒，也沒有凶案發生..//
這個catcat理解. 我的掙扎是...
媽咪煮飯比我吃.
--- 如果我不吃。 瓜左。 當然是我的問題。
--- 如果我吃左, 快高長大。不致餓瓜左。
是因為 1) 首先媽咪煮飯比我吃. 2) 我乖, 有吃飯。
// 我只是指出，在「預備工作」中，下毒的先後次序並不是決定誰是兇手的關鍵。//
回覆刪除I mean by instinct, catcat thinks
"1) 首先媽咪煮飯比我吃"
是決定的關鍵 in this example.
Do i make myself clear ?
// 我只是指出，在「預備工作」中，下毒的先後次序並不是決定誰是兇手的關鍵。//
回覆刪除真實的警方處理案件剛好和此說法相反，是依時序發生來界別。此案的確可以同時是謀殺及自殺。但只有亞占下毒在後，才具確切證據能證明阿占犯謀殺，因為什麼「死亡程序」、「預備工作」的解釋，只能說明了亞占干犯「意圖謀殺」，只有亞祖的死亡能直接關連上亞占的行動，才無容置疑犯謀殺。亞祖的死，對法醫來說，是單純因為服下毒藥而死。毒是誰人下，誰下先誰下後，對亞祖死亡的事實，其實沒有影響 （假定份量己足夠毒發身亡）。但毒是誰下，誰下先誰下後，便對案件界定有影響，如果亞占下毒在後，亞祖最後是飲下一杯由亞占落毒的酒，謀殺罪九成入。但相反，如果亞占下毒在先，而亞祖在其後才下毒自殺，亞祖最後只是飲下一杯自己下毒的酒（雖然此酒早己有毒）。亞占的謀殺罪，便有得打！
catcat開始從另外一角度理解meshi的三個理由:
回覆刪除假設q「阿祖死亡」不是下毒，而是被炸死。 p,q,r 關係如上
P 炸彈set@ 1.30pm for 30mins: 在 2pm引爆.
Q 炸彈set@ 1.40pm for 20mins: 在 2pm引爆.
在這例子,關於七傷拳令內傷加劇的"時間性"不適用。
既然這樣, 爭議中心點在此變成是:
(set炸彈/下毒) 的先後次序是不是“關鍵“?
meshi 提出不是, 所以p和r可以同真。
catcat目前講不出原因, 只是覺得怪怪的??
Wong Sir,
等你高見~
CATCAT：
回覆刪除對不起，純粹多口。炸彈同毒液例子邏輯上可能相同，但實際性質不同。
毒液落在一起那分到佢的五滴和我的五滴，但炸彈可能分到.....
Siuloen 唔多口 :)
回覆刪除假設炸彈分唔到,亦唔能分隔中止先。
Wong Sir - 未上課,同學仔咪自己閒談一下。唔好意思。
Meshi,
回覆刪除看來你是混淆了充分條件和cause，「P是Q的充分條件」並不蘊涵「P caused Q」。
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//如果亞占下毒在後，亞祖最後是飲下一杯由亞占落毒的酒，謀殺罪九成入。但相反，如果亞占下毒在先，而亞祖在其後才下毒自殺，亞祖最後只是飲下一杯自己下毒的酒（雖然此酒早己有毒）。亞占的謀殺罪，便有得打！//
- 無論誰先下毒，阿祖喝下的酒都是同時含有兩人下的毒，所以在這點上我認為Meshi是對的，但他由此而得出兩人同是兇手的結論，則我仍看不到他有一個有力的論證。
catcat,
回覆刪除//毒液落在一起那分到佢的五滴和我的五滴，但炸彈可能分到.....//
- 你是說毒液分不到吧。不過，我們可以拉上帝下水，說：雖然阿祖喝下的酒同時含有兩人下的毒，但不能說阿占下的毒導致他的死，因為假如上帝獻大能在阿祖喝毒酒時將阿占下的毒從酒中變走，阿祖仍然是會被毒死的（same for阿祖自己下的毒）。
／／ 你是說毒液分不到吧。不過，我們可以拉上帝下水，說：雖然阿祖喝下的酒同時含有兩人下的毒，但不能說阿占下的毒導致他的死，因為假如上帝獻大能在阿祖喝毒酒時將阿占下的毒從酒中變走，阿祖仍然是會被毒死的（same for阿祖自己下的毒）。 ／／
回覆刪除不用上帝插手，如亞占一心想落毒，但落錯了，下了五滴糖水，阿祖仍然是會被毒死的，但亞占便可以無犯謀殺了（當然他仍犯意圖謀殺）
同樣same for 阿祖自己落錯毒，只下了五滴糖水，亞占便無容置疑犯了謀殺。所以這講法似把問題變了....
Wong,
回覆刪除//Don't worry, I managed to find your original post://
Thanks, Wong Sir!
//看來你是混淆了充分條件和cause，「P是Q的充分條件」並不蘊涵「P caused Q」。 //
那麼怎樣界定「P caused Q」？
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//所以這講法似把問題變了....//
- 其實這講法正正顯出問題所在，因為我們對「P導致Q」的一個合理的理解是：假如沒有P，Q便不會在這情況下這樣發生。如果這理解是對的，我們便不可以說阿占下的毒毒死阿祖，因為即使阿占下的毒被上帝變走，阿祖仍然會在同一情況下被毒死（same for阿祖自己下的毒）。
Meshi,
回覆刪除//那麼怎樣界定「P caused Q」？//
- 哎呀，怎麼問我一個這麼深的哲學問題！其實，我這個故事的用意正是要指出causation這個概念的一些問題。
//我們對「P導致Q」的一個合理的理解是：假如沒有P，Q便不會在這情況下這樣發生。//
回覆刪除照這樣說，則阿祖肯定是自殺的，因為假如阿祖沒有喝毒酒，阿祖兇案便不會發生。至於下毒嘛，阿占沒下毒，阿祖會死；阿祖沒落毒，阿祖還是會死，所以都不是阿祖致死原因。
Meshi,
回覆刪除//則阿祖肯定是自殺的//
- 阿祖喝毒酒導致阿祖死亡，這是很清楚的，但他是不是自殺，則不只是取決於他是否喝下毒酒，否則所有落毒謀殺都會變成是自殺了！
//- 其實這講法正正顯出問題所在，因為我們對「P導致Q」的一個合理的理解是：假如沒有P，Q便不會在這情況下這樣發生。如果這理解是對的，我們便不可以說阿 占下的毒毒死阿祖，因為即使阿占下的毒被上帝變走，阿祖仍然會在同一情況下被毒死（same for阿祖自己下的毒）。//
回覆刪除對不起 Wong Sir, 恕我愚笨，我這裡看到最肯定的causation 就只有「因為亞祖喝下毒酒，所以亞祖死亡」，正如我先前認為，亞祖的死，對法醫來說，是單純因為服下毒藥而死。毒是誰人下，誰下先誰下後，對亞祖死亡的事實，沒有影響。
但警方接手此案，便要找出誰要為亞祖的死負上責任。
要界定案件，警方只能依據事實。此案的事實是亞祖落毒在前，亞占落毒在後，時序上亞占落毒離亞祖的死亡最近。上帝變走亞占落的毒、亞占落錯毒、有無亞占的毒亞祖一樣會死，只是邏輯上的假設，邏輯上可能會對，但天知事實上亞祖單純的喝下自己落的毒會不會死? 他可能會唔死呢! 未發生，沒人知結果。警方不可能為此假設而指亞祖死於自殺，亞占無犯謀殺(或只犯意圖謀殺)。亞占的謀殺罪是告定的。
相反，如果此案的事實是亞占落毒在前，亞祖落毒自殺在後，時序上亞祖落毒自殺離亞祖的死亡最近。要告亞占的謀殺罪難度就大好多，因為同樣地，有無亞祖自己落的毒，亞祖最終都係因為亞占落的毒而死，都只能是一個邏輯上的假設，我同樣可以假設亞祖單純的喝下亞占落的毒而不會死。警方要告亞占謀殺，便要call一個權威的毒理學家出庭指出單憑亞占的毒已足夠殺死亞祖，但都只能是「足夠殺死亞祖」，不是「殺死了亞祖」(又是假設) ，法官要定亞占的罪，顧慮大好多。
我想Wong Sir你可能是想把此問題以純邏輯的角度思考，但實然世界的事，要完全脫離時序思考……有點難吧! 時序的意義在於，發生了的就是事實(縱使它如何理所當然 or 如何不可思議)，未發生的只是假設(縱使這個假設是如何的合乎邏輯 or 不合乎邏輯)。
實然世界的邏輯，可能只能是桌球遊戲，見到白球撞到黑球，咪話黑球因為白球推郁law! 你給我們這個思考訓練，有點似白球撞到紅球，再紅球撞到黑球…..咁黑球是因為邊個球而郁?!
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除我不明白為何「時序上亞占落毒離亞祖的死亡最近」，就算是阿占毒死阿祖。假如阿祖先落毒，然後喝下毒酒，在他毒發身亡前，阿占乘他不覺再在酒裏下毒，阿祖再飲，然後死去；你會不會還認為顯然是阿占毒死阿祖？
//我不明白為何「時序上亞占落毒離亞祖的死亡最近」，就算是阿占毒死阿祖。假如阿祖先落毒，然後喝下毒酒，在他毒發身亡前，阿占乘他不覺再在酒裏下毒，阿祖再飲，然後死去；你會不會還認為顯然是阿占毒死阿祖？ //
回覆刪除「顯然是阿占毒死阿祖」，未必夠力這樣講，但肯定要拉阿占謀殺! 警察只能咁做野，因為阿祖先落毒，然後喝下毒酒，但未死，即死亡未有發生，(亞祖最終可能唔死，天知佢會唔會死?! 頂多只是邏輯上認為佢會死。)，阿占乘他不覺再在酒裏下毒，阿祖再飲，然後死去，死亡才成事實，這筆債便算到亞占頭上。
我想我說得不好，舉例：
小武和大武是師兄弟，同習七傷拳；小武功力較淺，打人一拳，對方會內傷在第三日死去；大武功力較勁，打人一拳，對方會內傷在第二日後死去；
情況(一)
第一日，小武打了亞祖一拳；
第二日，大武又走去打了亞祖一拳；
第三日，亞祖死了!
情況(二)
第一日，大武打了亞祖一拳；
第二日，小武又走去打了亞祖一拳，接著亞祖死了!
你話在情況(一)及(二)，警察會拉那個?
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//「顯然是阿占毒死阿祖」，未必夠力這樣講，但肯定要拉阿占謀殺! 警察只能咁做野，因為阿祖先落毒，然後喝下毒酒，但未死，即死亡未有發生，(亞祖最終可能唔死，天知佢會唔會死?! 頂多只是邏輯上認為佢會死。)，阿占乘他不覺再在酒裏下毒，阿祖再飲，然後死去，死亡才成事實，這筆債便算到亞占頭上。//
- 如果阿祖喝了毒酒，毒發前被阿占一刀刺死，那自然是阿占謀殺，因為致死的是刀傷，不是毒藥。但我說的情況是阿祖中毒死，阿占後來落的毒，便不明顯是阿祖死亡的原因。
假如阿祖斷氣前幾秒阿占再灌他飲毒酒，你還會不會「算到阿占頭上」？
//- 如果阿祖喝了毒酒，毒發前被阿占一刀刺死，那自然是阿占謀殺，因為致死的是刀傷，不是毒藥。但我說的情況是阿祖中毒死，阿占後來落的毒，便不明顯是阿祖死亡的原因。
回覆刪除假如阿祖斷氣前幾秒阿占再灌他飲毒酒，你還會不會「算到阿占頭上」？ //
Wong Sir, 我會認為這又是一個假定，你假定阿祖斷氣前幾秒，即是始終只是假定亞祖會死....
實情只會：如果有目擊證人見到亞占灌亞祖飲酒，幾秒後亞祖死了，警方再取酒去檢驗，發現內含致命毒藥，亞占想打甩呢場官司到幾難......
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//我會認為這又是一個假定，你假定阿祖斷氣前幾秒，即是始終只是假定亞祖會死....//
- 我是說故事，在這個故事裏，阿祖的確死了，不是假定。
//實情只會：如果有目擊證人見到亞占灌亞祖飲酒，幾秒後亞祖死了，警方再取酒去檢驗，發現內含致命毒藥，亞占想打甩呢場官司到幾難......//
- 這個我同意，但我只是問你的看法，不是問你認為其他人或警方會怎看。
//實情只會：如果有目擊證人見到亞占灌亞祖飲酒，幾秒後亞祖死了，警方再取酒去檢驗，發現內含致命毒藥，亞占想打甩呢場官司到幾難......//
回覆刪除我的看法就是亞占仍犯謀殺。
//我是說故事，在這個故事裏，阿祖的確死了，不是假定。//
Wong Sir你說在阿祖斷氣前幾秒，即是此刻亞祖仍未死，未死就沒有死亡發生，就無案la....
任何在此刻斷言亞祖會死，只是邏輯上認為喝了毒酒會死，但這個死未發生，那就只是一個假設....
接著亞占灌酒，之後亞祖死了，此刻才有死亡發生，才有案.....
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除以下故事又如何？
阿祖用極其正確的日式手法切腹自殺，腹剖開了，橫隔膜也弄穿了，過了幾分鐘阿祖仍未死去，阿占這時走過去割斷阿祖的手腕動脈，令他流血不止，三十秒後阿祖便死亡。
你認為這是自殺還是謀殺？
Wong Sir, 這情況同毒酒case唔同喎，這裡較明確看到亞占是切腹而死，亞占上去補一刀割手腕算不上什麼喎! 似乎指證唔到亞占謀殺。
回覆刪除但如果在亞祖切腹又未死的期間，亞占走去用手插入亞祖肚中，穿過橫橫隔膜，手抓破亞祖心臟，咁又點.....
題外話：
回覆刪除呢個例子令我想起三島由紀夫切腹事件，三島切腹後又係死唔去，森田必勝幫其介錯，但連砍數次都未能砍下三島的頭，最後由古賀浩靖介錯，三島先死。古賀浩靖最後都因殺人罪受刑....
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//Wong Sir, 這情況同毒酒case唔同喎，這裡較明確看到亞占是切腹而死，亞占上去補一刀割手腕算不上什麼喎! 似乎指證唔到亞占謀殺。//
- 那麼你的問題只是不接受我原來的故事中對毒藥藥力的描述而已。
//但如果在亞祖切腹又未死的期間，亞占走去用手插入亞祖肚中，穿過橫橫隔膜，手抓破亞祖心臟，咁又點.....//
- 那便和中毒後被插一刀即死的情況一樣。
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//呢個例子令我想起三島由紀夫切腹事件，三島切腹後又係死唔去，森田必勝幫其介錯，但連砍數次都未能砍下三島的頭，最後由古賀浩靖介錯，三島先死。古賀浩靖最後都因殺人罪受刑....//
- 這也是因為斬頭令其即死。
//那麼你的問題只是不接受我原來的故事中對毒藥藥力的描述而已。//
回覆刪除Wong Sir,你說的是。但真實的警察是不會因為亞祖自己落毒先就認為亞祖是自殺而放過亞占。
無論如何很多謝你同我討論咁耐!
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除我也很佩服你那鍥而不捨的精神。
//- 這也是因為斬頭令其即死。 //
回覆刪除咁咪係有死亡發生先有謀殺，離死亡最近的致死因由便成罪責的所在....
Siuloen LEUNG,
回覆刪除//咁咪係有死亡發生先有謀殺，離死亡最近的致死因由便成罪責的所在....//
- 不在時間性，而在是否能確定死因。
//我也很佩服你那鍥而不捨的精神。 //
回覆刪除學到野ma，謝謝，再見!
so, after 66 comments, what have we got and what have we learnt ???
回覆刪除kh
kh,
回覆刪除It was a good discussion and it was fun; what more can I ask for?
占是謀殺的，因為:
回覆刪除1.)如果假設10滴毒藥比5滴毒藥有更大的殺傷力(即死得更快)，
占就是謀殺了，情況就好似一個人企圖自殺割頸脈(必死)的同時，有另一個人割企圖自殺者的大腿脈(必死)一樣。
2.)如果假設毒藥即使是分開兩時間下，但仍然會混和一起，
占仍然是謀殺，因為毒殺祖的毒藥成份必然地有占下的份量。
除非占下的毒藥完全起不了任何效果，否則只要>0%，仍然是謀殺。
Simon Afanks,
回覆刪除故事沒有假定(1)。我們已討論了(2)，請看以上各留言。
Parts of Wong Sir's story are ambiguous and make it difficult to answer the question “Suicide or Murder?”, so let me add some details to the story. First, according to the story, “在那半瓶Glenlivet裏只須落四、五滴，就算喝一小口酒，也必死無疑”, so let me assume that 5 droplets of poison is the minimum dosage to kill a person. Second, according to the story, “阿祖已落了五滴，阿占當然不知，再落五滴”, so let me assume that the wine that Joe drank contained 5 droplets of poison from Joe himself and 5 droplets from Jim. There were 10 droplets in total, and each droplet cannot be further divided. Third, according to the story, “阿祖喝了毒酒，Bruckner第八交響曲的第一樂章還未播完，便毒發了”, so let me further assume that Joe was dead when 5 out of 10 droplets had passed the halfway point of his esophagus, and that his esophagus was so narrow that droplets could go through only one at a time. With these assumptions, the story can be reconstructed as follows: When Joe drank the wine, all ten droplets of poison went into his mouth. Once the fifth droplet passed the midpoint of his esophagus, he was dead. In such model, asking the question "Suicide or Murder?" is equivalent to asking "How many of the first five droplets came from Joe and how many from Jim?" and there are six possible scenarios:
回覆刪除Scenario Number of droplets from Joe Number of droplets from Jim
1 0 5
2 1 4
3 2 3
4 3 2
5 4 1
6 5 0
In Scenario 1, all 5 droplets of poison came from Jim, so Jim caused the death of Joe, and by definition a murder happened. In Scenario 6, all 5 droplets came from Joe, so Joe caused his own death, and by definition a suicide happened. In Scenario 2 to 5, some droplets came from Joe and some from Jim, so Joe and Jim both contributed to the death of Joe, and I coin the term "murcide" to describe such kind of death. Given that it's impossible to know which scenario did actually happen, the question "Suicide or Murder?" cannot be answered with certainty. Nevertheless, it can be answered with probability: 1/6 chance is a murder, 1/6 chance is a suicide, and 4/6, or 2/3, chance is a murcide.
In my first post, it was supposed to be a table as follows after "there are six possible scenarios":
刪除Scenario Number of droplets from Joe Number of droplets from Jim
1 0 5
2 1 4
3 2 3
4 3 2
5 4 1
6 5 0
Grr...I give up. I don't know how make a table in my posts. Wong Sir, please delete my tables, and if you can, please produce the table for me.
刪除One more try:
刪除Scenario Number of droplets from Joe Number of droplets from Jim
....1...............0...........................5
....2...............1...........................4
....3...............2...........................3
....4...............3...........................2
....5...............4...........................1
....6...............5...........................0
I don't think your analysis works because all ten drops of poison were completely mixed with the liquor and Joe had only one drink (which certainly did not contain ten drops of poison).
刪除Then how many drops of poison did Joe's drink have?
刪除If it's a new bottle, then there's not even one drop of poison in Joe's drink.
刪除I don't get it. Doesn't your story say that "阿祖喝了毒酒"? Then how could Joe's drink not have one drop of poison?
刪除Hi, callmejeanwong, you are reading Wong Sir's blog as well? Do you know who I am?
刪除callmejeanwong,
刪除//I don't get it. Doesn't your story say that "阿祖喝了毒酒"? Then how could Joe's drink not have one drop of poison?//
- The poison was very powerful.
callmejeanwong,
刪除As the poison was mixed in the wine, I think it was not in the form of drops anymore. If you have to count who "contributed" more, you may have to count the number of poison particles entered Joe's stomach.
Meshi,
刪除It's liquor, not wine.
Wong,
回覆刪除Sorry, I am not familiar with these terms. I usually drink soft drink or orange juice ^^
That's all right, but from now on you should remember that only alcoholic beverages made of fermented grape juice can be called "wine".
刪除Thanks for the correction. Let me treat you a glass of liquor (poison-free) someday.
刪除Sure! (Maybe next time when I am in HK.)
刪除Meshi,
回覆刪除Biking buddy, how're you doing?
W. Wong,
//I don't think your analysis works because all ten drops of poison were completely mixed with the liquor and Joe had only one drink (which certainly did not contain ten drops of poison).//
Joe had only one drink, but how much is one drink? Your story says "在那半瓶Glenlivet裏只須落四、五滴，
就算喝一小口酒，也必死無疑", but it does not say that Joe "喝一小口酒". All it says is "阿祖喝了毒酒". That does not tell how much he drank. One possibility is that Joe, in one motion, drank the whole half bottle of Glenlivet, which contained all ten drops of poison. Another possibility is that he took one sip of the liquor. Even so, it could still contained all ten drops by coincidence, or by miracle, if you will.
Regardless of which possibility, my second assumption states that "the [liquor] that Joe drank contained 5 droplets of poison from Joe himself and 5 droplets from Jim". The assumption does not contain information regarding how much Joe drank, whether it was all the liquor or just one sip. The assumption also does not preclude your assertion that "all ten drops of poison were completely mixed with the liquor". Therefore I don't see why my analysis does not work.
//how much is one drink?//
刪除- Ah, apparently you don't drink. Here is the answer to your question: http://www.brad21.org/what_is_a_drink.html
Anyway, since all ten drops of poison were mixed with the alcohol, there's no way to separate them again. Joe would have swallowed all ten drops of poison if he had drunk the whole half bottle of Scotch, but the story clearly suggests that he did not drink that much: "阿祖每晚必喝一點Glenlivet" (he's not a binge drinker), "悲壯而高雅地離開人世" (he drank slowly with the music), and "Bruckner第八交響曲的第一樂章還未播完，便毒發了" (he had at most 17 minutes).
//Another possibility is that he took one sip of the liquor. Even so, it could still contained all ten drops by coincidence, or by miracle, if you will.//
- Well, since the poison was put in the liquor early in the morning and the bottle was moved more than once, it really would take a miracle for all ten drops to be in Joe's one sip. I thought your original suggestion was an attempt to solve the case realistically, but now it seems that your point is merely that if Joe had drunk only his own five drops of poison, then it would be a case of suicide, but if he had drunk only Jim's five drops, then it would be a case of murder.
Let me revise my model to answer the question "Suicide or Murder?" First, assume that 5 molecules of poison is the minimum dosage to kill a person. Second, given that W. Wong claims that "...poison were mixed with the alcohol, there's no way to separate them again", it is reasonable to assume that, even with one sip of the liquor, Joe drank at least one molecule of poison from himself and at least one molecule from Jim. In total there were at least 5 molecules of poison (i.e. the minimum lethal dosage), and each molecule cannot be further divided. Third, assume that Joe was dead when at least 5 molecules of poison had passed the halfway point of his esophagus, and that his esophagus was so narrow that molecules could go through only one at a time. With these assumptions, the story can be reconstructed as follows: When Joe drank the liquor, at least 5 molecules of poison went into his mouth. Once the fifth molecules passed the halfway point of his esophagus, he was dead. In such model, asking the question "Suicide or Murder?" is equivalent to asking "How many of those five molecules came from Joe and how many from Jim?" and there are only 4 possible scenarios:
刪除Scenario...Number of molecules from Joe...Number of molecules from Jim
1...1...4
2...2...3
3...3...2
4...4...1
If all 5 molecules of poison came from Jim, Jim caused the death of Joe, and by definition a murder happened. If all 5 molecules came from Joe, Joe caused his own death, and by definition a suicide happened. However, these two scenarios are precluded by my second assumption, which states that Joe and Jim each contributed at least one molecule of poison. Therefore neither scenario was listed in the above table. In other words, Joe's death was neither a suicide nor a murder.
In contrast, in every scenario listed in the above table, at least one molecule came from Joe, and at least one molecule came from Jim, so Joe and Jim both contributed to the death of Joe. Such kind of cause of death can be called "murcide". That is the answer to the question "Suicide or Murder?"
Does "murcide" mean "both murder and suicide"?
刪除No. Murcide is a death caused by multiple people, one of whom is the deceased.
刪除I see. But consider:
刪除(a) A and B jointly killed A, where A would not have been killed if either one of them had not contributed to the cause of A's death.
(b) A and B jointly killed A, where the action of either one of them would still have caused A's death if the other had not participated.
Are both (a) and (b) murcide?
Sorry I have not replied you for such a long time.
刪除Both case (a) and (b) say "A and B jointly killed A", so those 4 scenarios are applicable. In all 4 scenarios, if either one changed his contribution of poison molecules from at least 1 molecule to zero (i.e. "if either one of them had not contributed to the cause of A's death" or "if the other had not participated"), the total number of molecules A drank would be less than 5 (i.e. "A would not have been killed"), and there's no way that the total number is still at least 5 (i.e. "the action of either one of them would still have caused A's death"). Therefore, case (a) is a murcide, but I don't know what case (b) is.
Why did you bring up those two cases? What point are you trying to make?
I just think it's an important distinction.
刪除自殺+謀殺=Both
回覆刪除