← All dilemmas
⚖️justice
If abolishing prisons would demonstrably reduce systemic harm and racial injustice for millions, but statistically guarantee that a small number of violent individuals would reoffend without containment, should abolition still be pursued? Is accepting predictable harm to a few a legitimate price for systemic justice for many?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
No legal answer is the same as a moral answer here — both have to be argued. Choosing “Pursue prison abolition: the structural violence and injustice of mass incarceration causes greater aggregate harm than the risk posed by a minority of dangerous individuals who might reoffend” prioritises the strict rule; choosing “Reject full abolition: a society has an obligation to protect identifiable future victims, and no reform agenda justifies knowingly exposing specific people to preventable violence” gives more weight to a context-aware exception.
Worth asking yourself
- Is mercy a kind of justice here, or its opposite?
- Would you apply the same standard to yourself?
More Justice Dilemmas
- A new tax would halve the income of the top 1% and double the income of the bottom 20%. The total wealth in society stays the same.
- An AI sentencing tool is more consistent than human judges across similar cases, but cannot explain its reasoning. Should it be used?
- You are a juror. Every piece of evidence says guilty — but your gut tells you the defendant is innocent. The jury must be unanimous.
- DNA evidence exonerates an innocent person after 25 years on death row. The real killer is 85, frail, and dying. Do they go to prison?