Governor Sarah Palin apparently has been cited for losing some of her ethics on the warpath to getting her brother-in-law nailed for his misbehavior. Did the end justify the means? This is an age-old question, especially when it comes down to protecting innocent people.
Let's look at a couple of scenarios that can drive us nuts.
The first one: A man is let out of prison after he has raped and murdered to children. He comes to you one night - say he is your brother-in-law- and he tells you, as he is getting into his car, "I am going to go rape and kill me a little six-year-old girl." You know he means it. Do you shoot him?
The second one: Ten men are fighting the death penalty in court. One is innocent of murder (and truly an honest and wonderful law-abiding citizen) and the other nine are vicious serial killers who we know have killed many times and, if they get off, they will go out and kill ten innocent people a piece. Should we be so strict with our requirements to get a conviction that it is nearly impossible to get a guilty verdict? Is that saying that it is better to let ten guilty men go free to save one innocent one? I don't know why the person who made that statement can't count but if you let the guilty men go free, you are condemning 100 people to death.
Maybe Palin got caught up in this kind of thinking or maybe she just wanted to win and didn't think she had to follow the rules. I tend to think the latter is true but the issue of right vs. wrong in protecting innocent people is really quite interesting and certainly frustrating.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown