Overthinking Time Spell Crimes

[Ban]

Let's say you had a spell that could send someone back to the past ( 500 years ago). One day you get tired of looking at a co-worker's smug face and you decide to cast your spell on them and as a result they are sent back 500 years ago. Let's also assume this causes no time ripples, nor prevents you from casting the spell in the first place.

My question is: "did you commit murder?"

By casting the spell you are ensuring that the person is dead after it has been cast on them. The person was alive when you met them, the spell hit them, now they are deceased. Even though your (ex)co-worker may have still lived a long and happy life in the past, your action caused them to be dead in the present, thus making you culpable for taking away their life in our time, even if that life might still have continued to be lived in the past.

Thoughts? This is not for a story, just a ramble.

 

[Devor]

No.... probably. You presumably weren't responsible for the cause of death. But there's still a high chance the person did die a short miserable death because you sent them back in time. He or she could've caught the plague or been killed by bandits for being an easy mark, or incarcerated in an asylum for strange behaviors, or starved to death for having no idea how to survive in that time. Could you look up that history? It might make a difference.

Either way it's a horrible, horrible crime and the difference here is a technicality. If it's not murder it's about as bad.

 

[Ban]

That's a different spin to it than I was thinking, but yes I would say that in that interpretation of the crime, the caster is at least guilty to the extent that their action led to the person's death.

In my version I am more concerned with whether or not the break in continuity can be constiuted as murder in itself, not being the cause of a potential past murder. Meaning, that by choosing to cast the spell you ensure that the person it is cast upon ceases being alive in the present. They are now, in the present day, dead, thus your choice led to their death right? Even if that death were not horrific, the end result is that they are still deceased in the time that they originated from.

Damn braintwisters, love them

 

[Devor]

By that logic, what if you sent them into the future instead? They wouldn't be dead, but they no longer exist here in the present.

Still, though.... it's more trying to reconcile a gap in the law than it is about evaluating time crimes. It definitely deserves its own branch of criminal law. We should get the lawmakers on it right away.

 

[Ban]

That's an interesting side-tangent, I'd think the same principle would apply. That bring me to another side-tangent that I excluded from the original question. How much would it matter if the individual is still alive in our time? Like let's say you send a 20 year old back 20 years before they were born. They would then be 40 in our current day. Would the caster be responsible for taking those 20 years from the person's life in our current day?

I'd agree this is more of a legal matter than anything else. The victim did not lose their life necessarily, but they still ceased being here and as a result their loved ones were left without the individual, and their life in the present was robbed from them, even if it was substiuted with a life in either the past or future. While we're summoning lawmakers, I'd like to ask them how much influence a crime's impact on the environment around the crime mattter in determining the sentencing for it.

 

[FifthView]

In my version I am more concerned with whether or not the break in continuity can be constiuted as murder in itself, not being the cause of a potential past murder. Meaning, that by choosing to cast the spell you ensure that the person it is cast upon ceases being alive in the present. They are now, in the present day, dead, thus your choice led to their death right? Even if that death were not horrific, the end result is that they are still deceased in the time that they originated from.

I'd say: no.

Your choice didn't lead to their death any more than giving wrong directions to the local hamburger joint, should they follow your directions, leads to their death. They are going to die in the future right? And every step between now and their death leads to their death, right? So that extra hour they spent driving around looking for that hamburger joint — caused by you! — is a part of their journey toward death.

The bandit's blade caused their death. Or syphilis. Or the imperfect human body that eventually succumbs to old age.

Or look at it another way. You may have saved your co-worker's life. You seem to be a reasonable fellow, so if he was annoying, others who are less reasonable may also have been annoyed. Perhaps another co-worker had planned to murder him in an office shooting in one week—and you foiled that man's plan!

 

[FifthView]

That's an interesting side-tangent, I'd think the same principle would apply. That bring me to another side-tangent that I excluded from the original question. How much would it matter if the individual is still alive in our time? Like let's say you send a 20 year old back 20 years before they were born. They would then be 40 in our current day. Would the caster be responsible for taking those 20 years from the person's life in our current day?

There are a couple issues here.

One, which appeared in your original question also, is the question of "What is life?" On the one hand, there is life and not-life/death. On the other hand, "a life" might be considered the sum total of experiences lived. Then on the third hand (if you are from the right planet and have three hands), "a life" might be considered all the interpersonal connections or a sort of emergent social relevance. The taking of each of these away from a person, or the altering of each, might have different moral and ethical dilemmas, be better or worse, depending on which is taken.

Another issue is responsibility. For this set of questions (quoted above in this post), the answer for me is unequivocally yes, the caster is responsible. This would be the same answer I'd give if the person were merely locked in a basement cell for 20 years, or abducted aboard an FTL ship and time-dilated. For your example of sending him back 20 years, I do not think we can necessarily know whether the caster is responsible for a good result or a bad result of that decision to send the man back, heh. Maybe that 20-year-old took his knowledge with him and made some good investments and now, at 40 years old, he's a multi-billionaire. Heck, he might be President of the World. Or he could be a murderous psychopath at 40, whereas before he was on a path to creating peace on Earth. But in any of the cases, yes, the caster is responsible for that missing "life," even if we can't know exactly what is missing.

 

[Futhark]

I read something interesting about the way bacteria and viruses evolve with our immune system. If we travel back in time we would kill people with our common cold, and if we travel forward we would die.

But to answer the question, I think it would be more like kidnapping, or time-napping, rather than murder.

 

[CupofJoe]

There is usually a crime along the lines a Grievous Bodily Harm or Reckless Driving that covers an act that could have led to a death but that death was not part of the plan.