[rookie1ja]

Murder in the Desert - Back to the River Crossing Puzzles
This is a story about three people (A, B a C) crossing a desert. A hated C and decided to kill him - he poisoned the water in his sack (only C had water). B also wanted to kill C (not knowing that the water of C had been already poisoned) and so B made a hole into the sack of C and the water spilt out. A few days later C died of thirst.
Who was the murderer - A or B?

Spoiler for Solution:

Murder in the Desert - solution
Well, this is a hard one. In my opinion, there is no clear solution. Each point of view is correct, somehow. Most of the people would say that A is the murderer. Solicitor of B would stress 2 things:
1. to take away poisoned water from someone does not mean killing him,
2. B just made C live longer, even if he did not mean to (the poison might have killed C earlier).
However, solicitor of A could present the following argument:
"How can be A be punished for committing a murder by poisoning C, if C did not swallow a single drop of poison."
Raymond M. Smullyan pointed out the moral, legal and logical point of view. It is morally clear that both A and B are guilty of homicide attempt. Legally, 2 different courts could judge them in 2 different ways. And logic gives us the opportunity to write a whole book on this topic.

[Goldilocks]

Actually, since C was the only one with water, and he died from thirst, you would have to conclude that A & B must both have perished from dehydration before C since they had no water at all. So they can't be held responsible anyway.

[mr_pitcher_44]

goldilocks that is very true.

but they may have gone ahead of C and found water.

[fosley]

Well. . . it really depends on what the court knows.

B didn't know the bag was poisoned and C is dead, so only A knows A tried to kill C, which means he'd likely blame B for cutting the bag. Now, B would probably blame A for cutting the bag because only A and B really know who did it, which would end in a stalemate at a court. Knowing this, it would be best if A and B agreed to blame C for cutting his own bag by accident. Of course, either A or B might back out of the agreement, telling the court know that a conspiracy was taking place, making it possible that both get blamed, so they would probably just blame each other and nobody would be convicted.

Or, they would simply not tell anybody so nobody would get blamed. By the time the body was found, there wouldn't be any evidence to prove he was with them at the time he died, and if people knew he left with them they could just say he got lost and they never found him. Alternately, they could tell the police upon arrival that he got lost so it wouldn't be suspicious when they found a corpse lying in the desert.

If the court knows A poisoned the bag and B cut the bag, B could possibly say he cut the bag so C couldn't drink the poisoned water. He could furthermore say he didn't just tell C the bag was poisoned because he was dehydrated and not thinking clearly. A would get attempted murder and B would either get off the hook or get negligent homocide. If the court also knows why B cut the bag, the murder should fall on B, and A should get attempted murder only.

If I put a bomb in someone's house and cause it to detonate 5 minutes after he's supposed to get home, but that person dies in a car accident on the way home, I will not be blamed for his death, though I will get in a lot of trouble for trying. Likewise, A would not be blamed for C's death, even if A had already set the stage to kill him.

Of course, this does depend on the local laws.

[What?]

I would say A is the murderer seeing he is the one who put the poision in the water causing B to cut a slit in the sack...

[Tap_521]

well i say charge A with attempted murder and charge B with attempted murder and throw them both in jail for the rest of there lives!

[Veracity]

Quote

I would say A is the murderer seeing he is the one who put the poision in the water causing B to cut a slit in the sack...

WHAT???? Come on people. Not ONE of you made mention of the most important 2 facts of the situation!!!
#1 And MOST importantly, #2 did NOT cut the bag to PREVENT #1 from poisoning #3. HE DID IT TO KILL HIM. There was no attempt to save this guy at ALL from EITHER party! Therefore #2 does not get ANY credit for saving #3!!!

#2 HE DID NOT DIE OF POISONING. HE DIED OF THIRST which was a direct result of #2's actions, PERIOD! #1 tried to murder him with Poison. His attempt was unsuccesful due to #2's tactic for murder. You can not say that number 2 SAVED #3's life by cutting a pouch UNLESS HIS INTENTIONS WERE TO SAVE HIM. He did what he did to KILL HIM, and he SUCCEEDED!

#2 is the Murderer, Period. #1 is an Attempted Murderer

[artune]

b killed him. the riddle says he died of thirst. to die of thirst you die of lack of water. not by getting poisoned.

[kingofpain]

Actually, I would argue that "to die of thirst" would be to die of lack of *potable* water. Since C did not have any potable water with him (as a consequence of A's actions), A would be the murderer as per this point of view since he deprived C of potable water intentionally.

B would be charged with attempted murder as he cut the slit with full knowledge of the consequences and intended for these consequences to occur.

I would find both guilty of attempted murder, but I would definitely not convict B of murder. A could be convicted by a competent lawyer or an extremely sharp judge...like ..ahem... yours truly

[Veracity]

Quote

Actually, I would argue that "to die of thirst" would be to die of lack of *potable* water. Since C did not have any potable water with him (as a consequence of A's actions), A would be the murderer as per this point of view since he deprived C of potable water intentionally.

B would be charged with attempted murder as he cut the slit with full knowledge of the consequences and intended for these consequences to occur.

I would find both guilty of attempted murder, but I would definitely not convict B of murder. A could be convicted by a competent lawyer or an extremely sharp judge...like ..ahem... yours truly

How could you charge "A" with murder if he didn't MURDER him? He TRIED to poison him by spiking the water. HE DID NOT DIE FROM BEING POISONED. He died of THIRST.. Attempted murder is when someone TRIES to kill someone, but is unsuccessful. That is what "A" did.. He TRIED to poison "C" but was unsuccessful. "B" had the intention of murdering him by ridding him of water. He had no idea that the water was already poisoned!!! His goal was simply to cut the bag, causing "C" to die from thirst. His attempt was SUCCESSFUL. "C" did in fact DIE from LACK OF WATER, NOT POISONING!!!

My conclusion stands...

A = Attempted Murder...
B = Murder

Are you really a Judge???