← All dilemmas
⚖️justice
Hai testimoniato il falso in un processo anni fa. L'innocente condannato è ancora in carcere. Confessare ora distruggerebbe la tua famiglia. Cosa fai?
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 “Confessi la falsa testimonianza e accetti le conseguenze legali e personali per liberare un innocente” prioritises the strict rule; choosing “Rimani in silenzio, ma cerchi altri modi indiretti per aiutare l'innocente senza esporti” gives more weight to a context-aware exception.
Worth asking yourself
- Does context excuse the act, or just explain it?
- Who is the rule protecting, and who is paying for it?
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?