Should he go to jail or not? Why?

Question

A man has a wife that is dying of certain kind of cancer. A pharmacist has just invented a new drug purely accidentally that can save the man's wife. The man can't afford it so he goes around collecting money from all his neighbors. He still doesn't have enough money to buy the drug and the pharmacist won't lower the price. The man breaks into the pharmacy, steals the drug, and gives it to his wife saving her life. Should the man go to jail? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Yes. If everyone could just go around taking things they couldn't afford the world would be complete chaos! The man may have felt an injustice because the pharmacist didn't lower the price, but what about all the research and time that went into testing the new drug to make sure it worked? The pharmacist deserves to be compensated for that too.

Answer 2

An observant Jew would have no hesitation in answering this one, as these are the type of questions raised in the Talmud.

He should steal the drug, because to NOT steal it is to condemn his wife to death. The commandment "you will not steal" is secondary to the commandment "you will not commit murder", which, in a sense is what he would be doing if he didn't steal the drug.

BUT, having stolen the drug, he should go to prison, because that is the law in the land he lives in.

NOW THEN, here's a twist to that question. Drug companies like Glaxo Welcome produce drugs used to treat HIV in 'combined drug therapy', which allows most HIV sufferers to live without developing AIDS. However, most countries in Africa and Asia, where HIV infection is rife, can't afford the drugs. They cost a few cents to make (but millions to develop, but that has been recovered already) but Glaxo say "Why should we sell the drugs cheaply to those who can't afford our prices?"

Are Glaxo guilty of corporate murder??

Answer 3

he's only right i'd do it too regardless of jail. 2 or 3 years is a small price to pay, for at least your wife will be still there when you get. some people go through h**l for a few years when they lose a partner. would it not be a small price to pay to still have them.

Answer 4

That's a good Question.

He should go to Jail as he is guilty of robbery.If the neighbours refuse to lend any more and the pharmacist won't lower the price....then there are things he can do.Like borrow from the bank,sell some valuables.

Robbery for someone else's good should be only a last resort.

The court should reduce his sentence and make him pay for the medicine and window now as punishment maybe.

Answer 5

He should go to jail for stealing. justice is blind right?

Answer 6

Um No. This is about a criminal making his way up in the world. It's about love, and a crime driven by a modivating force to save his wife. One person stated that the world would be in chaos if everyone went around taking things they couldn't afford. This person is either a politician, or someone who has never experienced love. I would rather fight/ commit a crime to save a life, rather than stand around and watch someone I know die. Overall, he maybe should go to jail, and given a small fine.  The pharmacist shouldn't monopolize the market and sell at a high price. If anything, make the price affordable to everyone. Just cause there is a cure, doesn't mean the disease is defunct.

Answer 7

Yep - he should be locked up.

Starving the poor of drugs is the only way we have to thin them out a bit.  They breed like rabbits and add nothing to society.

Answer 8

ummmm......dunno.....guess he shud from a social view. but what he did for his wife is really special and nice, but then he must realize what he did for his wife is at the cost of him going to jail . so ya he has to go to jail and also he has to take it for his wife..

Answer 9

yes stealing is stealing but id do the same thing

Answer 10

No. He was trying to save the  life of a loved one .

  I believe that the pharmacist , who wouldn't lower his price to save a life should be the one to suffer.

  People are too selfish to help one another. They should realize that someday it could be them that needs the help.

  Honestly , I would probably kill to save my wife or my son .

  And yes GLAXO is guilty of corporate murder ...

  people have to stop hiding behind the "it was just business" defense

Answer 11

Oh my god..this is an old question that I remember from psychology courses. I think it was Piaget who asked it as a measure of mental maturity......not going to jail was the higher mental maturity.

Answer 12

Do the crime, pay the time.

Answer 13

If he didnt, then we would all steal to save lives wouldnt we?......  He did a good thing but he did it the wrong way.  He should go to jail.

Answer 14

You seem to be wanting to know if stealing regardless of the amount or value of the stolen item is worth the jail time.

So many variables in this question.

Morally it is wrong to steal,  regardless of the reason.

However,  the system does make allowances for things like first offences,  violence at the scene of the crime,  which there was none here,  it seems the store was closed at the time.  No weapons were obviously used to injure or threaten another person.

I say no jail time,  but that doesn't mean no consequences at all.  Some sort of community service should be paid back.

Answer 15

This question is known as the Heinz Dilemma.  It is used to test one's level of moral development.  More women typically say no the man shouldn't go to jail because he was saving a life and the pharmacist should have done the right thing by giving the man the drug or allowing him to make payments.  Men usually say yes because they are more focused on law and order and that's how the define good moral character (meaning he broke the law he should go to jail end of story).  However, not all laws make sense.  Like laws in some countries penalize women who were raped.  Yes she did technically break the law by according to them "allowing herself to be raped" (which no women ever do).  Someone functioning in the law and order stage would say she should go to jail.  Someone of higher moral functioning would say, she's a victim and should be helped not punished.  Are you trying to do your homework right now or just taking a survey?  Although my answer would be no he should not go to jail and yes Glaxo is guilty of murder.  I've seen too many wonderful amazing people die of diseases that they couldn't get treated for.  It wasn't because they were unemployed losers, it was because they were sick, couldn't work, and eventually lost their health insurance, but medical assistance wouldn't help them because of stupid things like they owned their home.  Had they been bums on the street, they would have had treatment.  We as a society need to seriously reconsider our priorities.  What do we value corporate greed or human lives?  Maybe looking at this questions you might think, I don't care about that person I don't know them, but imagine if it was your relative and Glaxo wanted a million dollars for life saving treatment and by the way insurance won't cover it.  Very few people in this country can pay that, so what would you do?  Let them die?