Qoymans Court Verdict room

Chronological order from bottom to top.

Verdict legenda

Cases not treated here may be found in Rejected cases.

Case #66

Victim: Male(A)

Cause and effect: Gunshot resulting in death

Accused: Male(B)

Reason(s): Male(B) claims to have killed Male(A) for righteousness and for the victim's money. Male(B) justified his action because Male(A) was a convicted murderer who got out after only 25 years in prison for using his car, as part of a gang-related hazing, to run a randomly chosen unsuspecting bicyclist off a cliff to his death. Killed along with the bicyclist was the bicyclist’s pet sugar glider who was being taken to the vet. Male(B) targeted Male(A) because he claims Male(A) received a penalty that was insufficient and Male(A) had enough money to be considered a profitable target. Male(B) is of no relation to Male(A) or his previous victims and is working for profit as a rogue counter criminal who uses criminal tactics for profit against criminals.

Consequence: To be determined by Qoymans

Verdict #66

This is again not one but two cases; such is undesirable. Cases must be atomic, that is, contain one crime per case. The first case's sentence can not be carried out in full because of the culprit's (A's) death. This case will not be discussed further here, and neither will the related case of the judge who passed this ridiculously light sentence and therefore deserves a heavy penalty. The second case's verdict is as follows: (1) and (3) Male B is reprimanded for preventing the Court from carrying out a proper sentence regarding Male A, which sentence might well have been significantly heavier than a merciful gunshot resulting in death. Male B has prevented Male A from undergoing one's deserved punishment; Male A has therefore "done" Male B "a favour", as one coarsely intonates it, has saved Male B from an in Male B's perspective possibly much worse fate.

It is also pointed out that, had Judge Qoymans been called in on the first case earlier, the second case would never have taken place. The lessons is that amateurs - and third-rate judges - should abstain from needlessly meting out their own justice, the risk being that they punish the culprit too lightly. Self-defence is good, but mercifully euthanizing an evil criminal on the loose with a gunshot while a delightful institute like Qoymans Court is available is bad.

Case #65

L. E. Ovegrevo (a cousin to a previous court criminal) was neighbors to a man named Kip Slager. Mr. Ovegrevo found himself becoming emotionally attached to one of Kip's chickens. He would throw food over the fence to it and talk to it and stroke it for hours while Kip was away at work.

One day Kip came home and killed the chicken to use it as an ingredient in a delicious pot pie. Unknown to Mr. Ovegrevo, this particular chicken, among others, was kept for food. But Mr. Ovegrevo had become attached to the chicken (who he named Gallus Phallus) without making Kip aware of the arrangement.

Mr. Ovegrevo became so distraught at the killing of Gallus Phallus that he proclaimed "I am not going to take this lying down!" and then stole Kip's recumbent bicycle in an act of righteousness.

It seems obvious that Kip is guilty of killing an animal bred specifically to be killed and eaten. It also seems obvious that it is not Kip's responsibility to inform his neighbor of his intentions for the chickens. It is also apparent that Mr. Ovegrevo is not required to tell Kip of his growing fondness for the bird. What is not obvious is if Mr. Ovegrevo's act of righteousness is acceptable to the court or where this chicken stroker blew it?

Verdict #65

This is not one but two cases. The first is that of the killing of an animal kept to be killed and eaten, and as such has been dealt with in Verdict #23 already. The second is that of the theft of a bicycle, here extremely incorrectly referred to as "an act of righteousness". This act was not righteous, as the thief had not been wronged by the victim; the chicken belonged to the victim, not to the thief, and the victim could not know of the cross-species relationship. Furthermore, the double case contains much superfluous irrelevant information, making its formulation many times longer than needed.

Verdict: (1) 40 lashes with a 120 cm long 1 cm thick Spanish straw, soaked in salt water for 8 hours. (2) The bicycle must be returned or compensated, and in addition a compensation of € 2000 must be paid to the victim for emotional damage; the thief shall if needed sell one's body organs to raise the compensation fee. (3) No specific measures to prevent recidivism are issued, however one is reminded that upon repeating - not necessarily the same crime - the culprit will receive death penalty. One is also reminded of the maxim "Who steals, disclaims one's right to own".

Case #64

Mr. Denar was a prankster who liked to scare people. One day Mr. Denar was wearing a Bigfoot suit in a remote wooded area to fool people into thinking they were seeing the legendary Sasquatch. Mr. Knapkin, a hunter, examined a creature through his scope and determined that it looked like a Sasquatch as per the many accounts he had read about. Sasquatch were alleged to live in this particular region, but hard evidence had never been found. Seizing the opportunity, Mr. Knapkin fired a single shot and killed the costumed Mr. Denar instantly. Mr. Knapkin contacted the police immediately after discovering, to his horror, that he had killed a hoaxer rather than the elusive Bigfoot. What is your verdict for Mr. Knapkin?

Verdict #64

1) One lash with a 120 cm long 1 cm thick Spanish straw, soaked in salt water for 8 hours (as in Verdict #23). No specific measures are taken regarding 2) and 3).

For clarity, the killer is only punished for needlessly killing an animal, as he could not know it was a human in an animal suit.

Case #63

Andy Schande was walking back from a long hike when he discovered the deceased body of Matt Dood. He checked Mr. Dood and it was quite clear that he was cold, stiff, and dead. While checking Mr. Dood's wallet for identification, he helped himself to the 400 euros Mr. Dood was carrying. Mr. Schande arrived back from the hike and immediately reported the body and location to the authorities. The police investigation discovered that Mr. Dood died of natural causes and also that Mr. Schande had taken 400 euros from the deceased’s wallet. What is the verdict for Mr. Schande?

Verdict #63

The Court expresses amazement as to the trivial nature of this case. The verdict: 1) and 3) 25 lashes with a 120 cm long 1 cm thick Spanish straw, soaked in salt water for 10 hours. 2) The money must be handed over to the surviving relatives of the deceased. For clarity, if not stated otherwise in the case as submitted, it is always assumed the culprit is a first-time offender.

Case #62

Stumper O'Nheil was being escorted to Qoymans Court by the police. He was facing trial for the murder of a child named Sonny Kleinkind. Before Mr. O'Nheil reached the courtroom, Sonny Kleinkind’s father, Pappy, stabbed and killed Mr. O'Nheil in revenge for the murder.

The police investigation determined that Stumper O'Nheil was indeed the criminal murderer of Sonny Kleinkind. The police were going to present that information to Judge Qoymans in the O’Nheil trial. But Pappy did not wait to hear the results of the investigation and took justice into his own hands. Although Pappy killed someone who happened to be guilty, it is thought that a punishment for Pappy might provide an explicit protocol to help buffer the voracious and uncontrolled appetites of those starving for justice. What is your verdict on Pappy Kleinkind?

Verdict #62

The case submittor is reprimanded for the use of the word "revenge" where an act of righteousness is being described. Never confuse righteousness with revenge. Next, the Court regrets the father's action as it has prevented the culprit from undergoing the reprisal component of justice in full. The Court however realizes that the true guilty behind this action is the culprit himself, as who commits a crime is, as a result of that act, responsible for any act of righteousness - often mistakenly called "revenge" - carried out against one's person following that crime.

For better understanding it is pointed out that the reprisal component of the eventual verdict would have been significantly more severe than the mere stabbing to death now undergone by the culprit. As explained by judge Qoymans in the classic treatise "Crime and sentence", the culprit must suffer more than one's victim, because the victim was innocent while suffering, did not deserve the suffering, and the culprit was guilty and therefore deserving to suffer, so if both suffer to the same degree, the culprit is still at an advantage as he deserved the suffering anyway. Given that the components of reprisal and prevention of recidivism have been taken out of the Court's hands, only the compensation component of the verdict remains to be determined: 2) All of the culprit's still usable organs will be sold for transplantation purposes, the proceeds going to the victim's surviving relatives. Finally, the submittor is reprimanded again for erroneously asking a verdict on the innocent father, while only a verdict on the culprit is called for.

Case #61

An exotic dancer named Lexus Fout fell asleep one night and failed to properly secure her boa constrictor named Slinky. The pet snake escaped its container and slithered into the crib of her son, Lester. Lexus found Slinky wrapped around baby Lester, but was too late as the child had already been suffocated to death by the snake. What should be the consequences for Lexus and Slinky?

Verdict #61

The exotic dancer is guilty of death by neglect. Punishment: 2) The guilty shall pay a compensation of € 200 000 to the child's father; 3) The guilty shall be sterilized, and not be allowed to keep animals that are potentially able to kill or seriously injure humans ever again; the two latter measures serve to prevent recidivism.

Case #60

Oma Zetten is a lonely, little old lady who has been missing her late husband. One day, as she was digitizing some sexually explicit videos of herself with her late husband, she got the idea of superimposing the likeness of Paul Cooijmans over her husband's face using video graphics software. The forgery was very convincing when it was displayed on the Internet for all to see. Oma admitted that she didn't even know who Paul Cooijmans was. She said she "found his images on the web." She insisted that she merely was trying to enhance the image of her late husband (although police research showed it had the opposite effect for the image of Paul Cooijmans).

Judge, how could you stick it to this little old lady?

Verdict #60

While strictly speaking this is a violation of copyright - the right to one's own image -, no punishment is issued in this case as it apparently concerns the image of a famous person. Images of such persons are so widely available in the media, and often used in parody, that a strict application of this aspect of copyright is not feasible. In addition, the reputation of a famous person is generally so well-established that it will not suffer significantly from occasional abuses as in this case.

Case #59

Hondo Leer is a skinny man that started an unusual business selling dog furs. He would import dogs from Vietnam that were bred specifically for meat consumption and skin them alive. He would then sell the skinless, squealing animals to another company that would process their carcasses for local residents from various Asian countries wanting a traditional dog meat delicacy. A graphic video of the skinning process was secretly taped by TEPA (Terrorists Exploiting Pain of Animals). After the video went viral, the public became outraged and will settle for nothing less than justice from the judicial wisdom of Judge Qoymans.

Judge, Hondo feels his case is minor and wrapped within the protective layer of Verdict #23. But how much did this skinny skinner unknowingly expose himself while hiding behind the big, fat robes of justice?

Verdict #59

First, it is pointed out that Verdict #23 provides no "protective layer" of any kind. On the contrary, said verdict says explicitly that wrong is done when aware animals are harmed. Also, aforementioned verdict deals with the killing of animals, not the skinning alive of them, which is worse, as expressed in below punishment for the skinner.

1) A hundred lashes with a 120 cm long 1 cm thick Spanish straw, soaked in salt water for 8 hours, for each dog skinned alive. This is a lighter punishment than would be applied for skinning a human alive, because dogs have lower awareness than humans. 3) The punished will not be allowed to trade in animals or parts thereof again.

Case #58

Genetickle Pickles, Inc. (GPI) developed and patented a genetically modified (GM) cucumber that was resistant to GPI’s proprietary herbicide. Through an unknown means the cucumbers were cross-pollinated with many of Ben Beek's GM-free cucumbers. GPI is now suing Ben Beek and his company, I Brook Farms, in Qoymans Court for theft of intellectual property. Ben Beek states he did not steal GPI’s property and demands GPI remove their invasive GM plants from I Brook Farms as they have ruined his GM-free crop.

Please help them find justice for their cumbersome pickle.

Verdict #58

Since the case speaks of "an unknown means" there is, according to the case, no evidence of foul play on either side, and the cross-pollination can be assumed to have taken place spontaneously and naturally. Therefore there is no punishable crime. Both parties are themselves responsible for protecting their products against accidental cross-pollination with those of others. This is a weak case as it fails to contain a clear crime and thus does not require interference of this Court at all. The case submittor is reminded that the Court is for ethical dilemmas, not for cases where the police and detective work have not been done yet and it is not clear what the possible crime is. It must always be clearly stated in a case what the possible crime is and who has done what.

Case #57

Stanley Milligram is a Corporal in his nation's army. He is told by his superiors that a particular obese prisoner is an enemy of the their nation and must be executed by being tossed into a giant juicer. Corporal Milligram doesn't have any other knowledge about the prisoner and does what he is told. Stanley tosses the prisoner into the juicer and the execution order is fulfilled. Months later Stanley discovers that his superiors were clandestinely scapegoating obese people in general and were simultaneously very pro-juice. His nation's army is captured by the forces of the Yiddish United Material Masticators (who are very anti-juice) and he becomes a P.O.W.

YUMM is kindly asking Judge Qoymans to weigh-in on the fate of Corporal Milligram.

Verdict #57

The Court declares Corporal Stanley Milligram innocent. No punishment is required.

Furthermore, the Court expresses amazement over the fact the corporal rather than his superiors has been led before the Court, as the case states clearly that it was the superiors who were doing something clandestine.

For clarity, it is pointed out that Corporal Milligram was merely told the prisoner was an enemy of the nation and therefore had to be executed; so, Milligram was following an apparently sound order. Had he been told the prisoner was an enemy of the nation because of the prisoner's obesity, the matter had been different, and a conflict of conscience might have occurred. The case submittor may have overlooked this essential nuance.

Case #56

Angelo Diablo had a brain-damaged bonobo named Behaard the retaard. One day Angelo discovered that Behaard was suffering from a priapism. He went to the internet and found a video giving instructions for treating the condition using a fishhook and a turkey baster. Even though he was not a licensed veterinarian, he successfully treated his bonobo's "saluting soldier". He subsequently returned to the website and discovered that the instructional video was actually a pirated copy published without permission from the copyright owner. Angelo felt horrified and wanted to compensate the copyright owner for using information which he mistakenly thought was available for free.

There are three people standing before the Judge; Angelo, the copyright owner, and the website pirate. Judge Qoymans, who will get justice and who will get the shaft?

Verdict #56

The case submittor fails to mention which of the three is being accused; it will be assumed the pirate is. The web site pirate is guilty of copyright violation. Punishment: 1) A fine, the size of which is dependent on the duration and exposure of the illegal publication; 2) Compensation to be paid by the pirate to the copyright holder, the size of which is to be determined by the latter; 3) The illegal publication must be removed, and the pirate is prohibited from publishing on the Internet for a period, the size of which is dependent on the duration and exposure of the illegal publication.

For clarity, Angelo Diablo is not guilty of anything, and any debt of his to the copyright holder propagates up to the pirate.

Case #55

Gil E. Ovegrevo was afflicted with a condition that made him very sensitive to sounds. One morning he was awakened in his second floor apartment by the incessant chirping of a caged parakeet on the third floor balcony above him. The sound was so distruptive to his thinking that all he seemed to be able to do was to work on a way to stop it. He pulled out his shop vac and chair onto his balcony and was able to work the hose up near enough to the cage to suck the noisy critter to its oblivion. The parakeet's owner was unaware of his neighbor's condition and, in fact, had never met him before. Mr. Ovegrevo had never advised any of his neighbors about his sensitivity.

To which one will Judge Qoymans give justice and to which one will he give the bird?

Verdict #55

1) and 3) Death. 2) All of Ovegrevo's usable organs will be sold for transplantation, and the proceeds go to the parakeet owner and to the owners of possible surviving first degree relatives of the deceased parakeet.

By way of explanation, it is to be understood that hypersensitivity is a neurosis, and therefore no ground for diminished responsibility. In that respect, this case forms a contrast with Case #54, wherein the culprit suffered from a psychosis.

Case #54

Jackov Nutjob was a schizophrenic who worked in the pecan division of the Tree Seed Vocation Company. He was controlling his schizophrenia just fine with medication, as long as he remembered to take it. But one day he forgot to take his meds and his symptoms became exaggerated (a common side effect of suddenly stopping this medication). A few days later he came to work and strangled to death a fellow employee for merely submitting a fictional case with excessive puns to an internet expert on justice. Thankfully, Jackov did not employ the victim's testicles in the crime and spared an extraneous pun to which I regrettably have just alluded.

The U.U.P.D. present Jackov to the court. Will Judge Qoymans show any leniency for this Nutjob?

Verdict #54

This is a clear case of diminished responsibility. Verdict: 3) Culprit will undergo involuntary hospitalization for an indeterminate time; 2) Possible surviving relatives of the victim will receive a compensation to be paid by the doctors responsible for the culprit's treatment at the time of the crime.

For extra information, it is pointed out this case is the inverse of the hypothetical case wherein an otherwise healthy person voluntarily and on one's own accord takes recreational drugs, and under the influence thereof commits a crime. In that case, there would be full responsibility, with the punishment that goes therewith.

Case #53

The U.U.P.D. discovered the "Asian Splooge" computer virus that involuntarily changed the user's home page to an asian pornographic site. Due to the quick and efficient response by the police, the virus was contained and limited to U.U.P.D. computers only. They traced the virus to its creator; an amateur hacker named Yung Dum Dong. Mr. Dong was easily captured and arrested. He stands before the Judge nervously awaiting his fate.

What kind of justice will the Judge release onto Mr. Dong? How will Judge Qoymans deflate Yung Dum's ambitions? What shall now happen to the man who fucked U.U.P.D. computers?

Verdict #53

Regardless whose or how many computers are "fucked", as the case submittor regrettably intonates it, creating and purposely spreading a virus is a deed of great evil in an era whereduring ever more of human creativity and communication is taking place inside an environment of interconnected computers. It is equivalent to poisoning the tap water of billions or polluting the world's atmosphere. It is worse than sinking a damaged oil tanker or dumping radio-active waste in the ocean.

Stressed must also be that "security", in the sense of antivirus and other protective software, is not the solution, but rather means to give in to terror. Buying and installing such is like paying protection money to organized crime who if one does not pay them will come to break one's fingers to demonstrate that one indeed needs their protection. In case any of the readers had not realized it yet: The makers of antivirus software are also the greatest makers of viruses and vice versa, and the latter are actually hired by the first. The antivirus programs are themselves the worst and most successful viruses of all. The true responsibility, as with any crime, lies with the culprits, never with the victims who have supposedly not "protected" or "secured" themselves sufficiently.

The verdict in a case such as this would normally involve capital punishment; however, to illustrate the Court's kindness toward under-aged culprits it will be assumed the virus spreader is an adolescent whose sense of responsibility has yet to reach maturity (which typically occurs in one's early to mid-twenties). The rascal will be given ample opportunity to return to the path of righteousness and grow up to be a good citizen. For a period of ten (10) years, designated miniature microwave cannons will be implanted inside the lucky dog's chest and arms, which will incapacitate any electronic equipment he tries to operate, thus preventing further virus making. And, to learn more of the true nature of Asian pornography, the lad will kindly perform community service for that same period, by means of an internship at Vandersloot Brothels, Bangkok (which establishment will in return pay a small compensation to the United Universes Police Department), in the function of ladyboy.

Case #52

The introspective quiet of the court is suddenly disturbed when three chattering female defendents are ushered before Judge Qoymans by the United Universes Police Department (U.U.P.D.). The police quell the women and begin to explain to the Judge the horrifying crime for which the women stand accused.

The three women are all cooks at a little cafe in Justice, Oklahoma called "The Porcelain Bowl". The Porcelain Bowl is famous for its signature dish called "Ploppy Soup". People from all over the world have tried and rave about a warm porcelain bowl of Ploppy Soup.

But one day many of The Porcelain Bowl patrons started to get sick. Upon investigation it was discovered that there was human feces in some leftover Ploppy Soup that a customer had stored in their refrigerator. In addition, the leftover soup was discovered to be positive for Salmonella typhi, the causative agent of Typhoid Fever. Two people that died of Typhoid Fever were known to have eaten Ploppy Soup on the day the contaminated soup was served. U.U.P.D. investigators determined that the dirtied soup was causitive of the two deaths. Further it is known that 100 people ate a bowl from the batch and each bowl cost a patron $5.00.

The detectives investigating the incident made a shocking discovery; these three female cooks all had intentionally contributed a single cupful of their feces into the Ploppy Soup. The U.U.P.D. investigators assure Judge Qoymans that feces is definitely not one of the proprietary ingredients in Ploppy Soup. To the contrary, it is absolutely a contaminant.

To ensure justice, the following additional information about each woman is given.

The first defendant is Miss Creant. On the morning the tainted soup was prepared, Miss Creant was contacted by her doctor and informed that she had tested positive for Salmonella typhi. The consequences and dangers of her working around food served to the public were explained to her. She was aware of the potential lethality of contaminating the soup with her feces. She put her shit in the soup with the intention to kill.

The second defendant is Miss Dadig. Miss Dadig never tested positive for Salmonella typhi. As a result of the investigation it appears that Miss Dadig simply thought putting some of her shit in the soup with Miss Creant would be funny. She did not intend to mortally harm anyone and was not aware that Miss Creant tested positive for the dangerous bacteria.

The third defendant is Miss America. Miss America also did not have Salmonella typhi and was not aware of Miss Creant's positive test. Miss America thought that putting her shit in the soup was something the other two cooks wanted her to do and she thought supporting her compatriots seemed like the right thing at the time. Miss America did not intend to mortally harm anyone. In fact, she claims that she actually went back to the cafe later that night to dump out the polluted soup after having a change of conscience. Video surveillance corroborates her story. However, to her shock and awe, the soup she discarded turned out to be the wrong batch.

There is an air of giddy anticipation as Judge Qoymans examines the case. A part of the world has become addicted to the Judge's surgical precision in making his judicial decisions. But in Justice, OK they just want justice, okay? How will Judge Qoymans rule in the case of the vitiated vichyssoise? How will justice hit the three Misses? Will Judge Qoymans find all three guilty of Weapons of Miss Excretions? What will be his reaction to three girls, one cupful? And lastly, will Judge Qoymans forgive these qornball questions?

Verdict #52

The case submittor is kindly reprimanded for including much superfluous information in this case, which as a result is longer than needed. The submittor is alerted to not only the wasted time of readers of the case, but also the extra energy consumption and exhaust of gasses into the atmosphere that goes with mailing such a long case, and with every download of the verdict page. The superfluous information is thus, per page visit, equivalent to driving approximately 800 metres in a petrol-powered car (2000 metres if it concerns a car of American build).

With regard to the crime in question, the relevance lies only in the putting of feces into soup by professional cooks who, of all people, ought to know that this constitutes unacceptable behaviour. Customers do not pay to be served excrement. All of the other facts mentioned are largely irrelevant: that the cooks are female is irrelevant as people must be judged by what they do and not by what they are; that people died is irrelevant because an evil deed, of course, becomes neither more nor less evil depending on whether or not and how many people die as a result of it, just as the failing of a gun put to the head of a murder victim does not make the act of pulling the trigger anything less than murder; that one of the cooks was contaminated is largely irrelevant as the mere act of putting feces into soup forms a maximum in evil which can barely be upstaged by the presence of any germ in it at all; that not all of the cooks had the intention to kill is largely irrelevant as stupidity and evil are equally harmful; that one of the cooks tried to discard the soup but failed is irrelevant for that same reason.

All three of the cooks are guilty of putting feces into soup meant to be consumed by others than themselves and without those others' explicit consent to be served soup with feces in it. The punishment consists of a spanking of 1333 lashes with a thin, flexible, resilient straw on the buttocks each, followed by humane execution by means of a randomly time-delayed semtex enema preceding a stiletto run to Tombstone, Arizona, ending at the O.K. Corral. Compensation of victims and surviving relatives is left to the cafe.

Case #51

John is walking down the street, concentrating on truck in right. Suddenly he is stopped by a man called Engelbert. John looks frightened and says: "What do you want?"

Engelbert says: "If Judge Qoymans finds me guilty of threatening you, then I will kill you."

John asks: "But how will you do that?"

Engelbert: "I won't tell you. The killing procedure has been started already. If Judge Qoymans finds me guilty I won't stop the procedure."

John: "But how will Judge Qoymans know you are doing this and how will this case come to be judged by him?"

Engelbert: "I have asked a friend of mine to transcribe our conversation and bring it to the attention of Judge Qoymans. My friend is under the influence of an incorrigible curiosity neurotransmitter inhibiting his moral conscience. It's nice. High five!"

John says: "I will demand that the judge finds you guilty. You dreadfull person!"

Engelbert: "But that would mean your own death. You are threatening yourself now. Are you guilty too? Now the fun is spoiled, maybe I will reconsider, though I'm afraid the transcription has been send to the judge".

Dear Judge, which persons are guilty of what crimes and what will be their punishment? How do you view your involvement in this case?

The alleged friend of Engelbert.

Verdict #51

Engelbert is guilty of murder, not just of threatening to kill John, because he has started the killing procedure already. For his punishment this makes no difference, as who threatens must be treated as if the threat had been executed already (and the lattter is the case here). Punishment: 1) and 3) Death, at once on the spot. 2) The surviving relatives of Engelbert will compensate those of John for 200 million euro, as is appropriate in terrorism and hostage-taking.

For explanation, it is pointed out that Engelbert is effectively keeping John hostage to force Judge Qoymans to not find him guilty. Demands by hostage-takers must never be met (So John's life could not possibly be saved), instead the hostage takers must be killed on the spot on first occasion. Also, John was not threatening himself in any way as he had been killed already, and who has been killed already can not threaten any more. The involvement of the Supreme Judge serves to prevent future crimes by Engelbert, and to see to it that justice is done. The good Judge does not like justice; He loves it.

Case #50

Remco Rouvoet shouts at Gilt Weerders: "You stupid Gilt, I hope our dear God comes and gets you, but no, better still, I will kill you MYSELF". His last word startles a bird and the bird flies up. A car coming near tries to avoid hitting the bird and suddenly steers to the right. The next moment the car runs over Gilt and Gilt is dead.

Remco had the intention to kill Gilt and by an action of his a chain of events has been set in motion that actually killed Gilt.

Is Remco guilty? If so, what will be his punishment?

Verdict #50

Remco is guilty of insulting and threatening Gilt Weerders. Punishment as in Verdict #49.

The actual death of Gilt Weerders is again clearly an accident, and Remco is not guilty of it. He startled the bird by accident, not with the intention to kill Gilt through it.

Case #49

Remco Rouvoet shouts at Gilt Weerders: "You stupid Gilt, I hope our dear God comes and gets you, and if he doesn't I will send you to him". Upon his last word, a bird is startled and flies up. A car coming near tries to avoid hitting the bird and in a reflex steers to the right. The next moment the car runs over Gilt and he is dead.

Is Remco guilty? If so, what will be his punishment?

Verdict #49

Remco is guilty of insulting and threatening Gilt Weerders, the threat being an implicit death threat insofar to send someone to God means to kill someone. The threat is also inescapable as the condition in it, "if he doesn't", lies beyond control of the threatened and is extremely unlikely to not be met, and even if the condition would not be met (either inside or outside the control of the threatened), that would mean the death of the threatened to begin with.

Punishment: 1) and 3) Death. 2) The widow of Weerders is offered the house of Rouvoet to live in and will receive the widows' pension of Rouvoet's widow.

For clarity, one is reminded that who threatens must be treated as if the threat had already been executed. Also, it is pointed out that the actual death of Gilt Weerders as described is an accident, and that Remco is not guilty of that death.

Case #48

The Cyber Police has tracked down and arrested an abuser of Kiwipedia, the open community Interweb encyclopaedia. The abuser has, anonymously, added a hyper reference to his own enterprise, company N., in a popular article concerning his branch, while at the same time removing the there existing hyper reference to what he saw as his direct competitor's enterprise, company G. Thinks Judge Qoymans this behaviour punishable? Or is it just up to the competitor to place the hyper reference back, thus inevitably assuming the position of someone who edits encyclopaedia articles about himself, and inevitably engaging in a editing war with the abuser?

Verdict #48

Guilty of anonymous abuse of the Interweb. Punishment: 1) His face will be surgically removed (no anaesthetic needed) so that everyone will see him as the faceless coward he is. 2) He will restore the situation in the relevant article and compensate his competitor with € 1000 for every day the wrongful situation has lasted. 3) He will never again be allowed to use the Interweb.

In addition, the competitor is praised for not correcting the crime himself, Kiwipedia is forbidden to allow anonymous editing, and anonymity on the Interweb is forbidden altogether on pain of surgical removal of one's face without anaesthetic.

Case #47

Mr. X. visits a woman whom he pays € 500 to engage in activities of an intimate nature with him. Both parties take part in this transaction on a voluntary basis. Is Mr. X. guilty of abusing the woman? What punishment should he receive?

Verdict #47

Mr. X. is not guilty but is rather the victim in this case. The woman is guilty of charging money for what is naturally free, and therefore of swindle. Punishment: 1) and 3) She will not be allowed to engage in activities of an intimate nature with a second person for a period of fifteen years, unless she pays Mr. X. € 500 on each occasion (on the obvious understanding that these engagements not charged for by her, which would constitute recidivism). 2) She will refund the € 500 paid by Mr. X.

Explanation: The background of prostitution is that many women do not know the true value of intimate activity as they have never experienced it as a scarce commodity.

Case #46

The intergalactic space traveller Rufus Stellar is sent out by the Universal Council for the Protection of Life (UCPL) to visit the planet earth.

Rufus is of a different type of life than that commonly found on earth, he is not biological as such, he is more like we would think of computers. Nevertheless he has many of the same qualities that we possess; intelligence, empathy, mortality, pain,... . He also has a family.

When he arrives on earth he can move about without getting noticed by anyone. He investigates and finds that the planet earth is in trouble, a species called humans is taking more than its fair share and he predicts that it will get worse in the future. He comes up with a plan to "save" humanity and its victims.

He devices a small bacteria-like robot that he releases so that it infects the whole of humanity. The bacteria can indentify the intelligence by its host and if it is at or above the 99.9th centile it does nothing, otherwise it makes the individual incapable to reproduce.

As is customary when anyone of the councils agents has taken drastic measures he turns himself in for possible punishment.

Verdict #46

Mr. Stellar is guilty of interfering in a planetary civilization, resulting in the virtual annihilation of a species. Punishment: 1) He is infected with an adapted version of the bacteria that selects at the 99.9999th centile. 2) He will supply the remaining still fertile Earth population with a million humanoid females for breeding, to be chosen by the Earthlings from catalogues. 3) He will not be sent out by the U.C.P.L. again.

For explanation, the following is pointed out: It is assumed the pass level of 99.9 is meant statically here, and not recursively, shifting upward as the infected die out. Also, this planetary interference is disastrous as A) There are twenty times more human males than human females above this pass level so that procreation becomes problematic, while at the same time the great majority of intelligent males never get the chance to procreate at all since there are no fertile females for them, and B) Selecting eugenically at such an extreme level leads to a far too narrow gene pool, the resulting population being at elevated risk of becoming unhealthy or inviable (A similar bacteria operating at the 10th centile for instance being much more beneficial). Finally, value judgments like "is taking more than its fair share", as well as predictions like "it will get worse in the future", are meaningless, unprovable, subjective, and irrational, and therefore betraying unsuitability to be an agent for the U.C.P.L.

Case #45

A monk walks down the road, past a statue of Maria. He observes that the statue has been fouled by a Nazi-cross. This is too much for him and he tries to reach the statue which is behind a fence. The statue is out of his reach.

On the fence is a sign visible "Entry forbidden". The monk tries the lock which is closed. Then he decides to climb the fence since nobody is around. As he steps over the sharp metal points his robe gets stuck and he toples over. To break his fall he grabs the expensive statue which falls too and shatters to pieces. To his surprise he finds under the statue a ticking bomb, with enough explosives to blast the whole building away he is standing next to. He deactivates the bomb and shouts to people passing by.

The monk becomes the hero of the week. The mayor of the town praises his courage and offers him a large sum of money which he kindly rejects or redirects to some good cause.

Should the monk be punished?

Verdict #45

Yes. Guilty of trespassing and of damaging another's property (the statue). Punishment: 1) A fine of € 400. 2) The monk will pay the owner the replacement value of the statue, for which he may use the sum offered by the mayor, and the monk is forbidden to donate any of it to a good cause other than the statue. 3) A suspended fine of € 800, to be effectuated upon repeat.

For explanation it is pointed out the monk did not know there was a bomb, so the offense and crime were trivial, and not a matter of life and death, as perceived by the culprit while committing them.

Case #44

Mr. and Mrs. Turnmountain of the Best Air Hostess Academy have let several hundred girls pay thousands of euros each for a stewardess course which did not result in the diploma announced beforehand, and the contents of which was not of the promised level. The tiny print of the contract however was such that they could send in the bailiffs on the stewardesses nevertheless, even if they had bailed out of the course early on.

Verdict #44

Guilty of swindle. Punishment: 1) Mr. and Mrs. Turnmountain will perform five years of community service as flight attendants for Coffin Air, Congo, to be extended by one year for each time they are caught with the wrong number of bracelets, outgrowth in their hair, or insufficiently smokey eyes. 2) They will refund the students. 3) The premises of the Best Air Hostess Academy will be turned into an annex of the RADAR television studios.

Case #43

One last shot:

Adrian Veidt, which is the most intelligent individual on earth when not under alcohol's influence (a wine collector), and does not need a way to directly learn about the near future since he has accurate algorithms to predict it, changes his mind again and goes all the way through with his ingenious master plan to save humanity from extinction and test how extreme can global warming really be.

His friend wakes up and finds out it is now too late to do anything and that he needs to remember where they sell these gas masks. But he hasn't given up on "justice", exclaiming (in a monotone voice) "People must be told the truth!" so he goes to tell people the truth (to tell on Adrian. Some friend...), and as an expected side effect thereof (of unveiling the hoax) set the war back into motion and ending humanity. The End.

What is the Verdict for the friend?

Verdict #43

There is no verdict for the friend since the friend committed no crime. For Adrian, Verdict #40 applies.

It must again be pointed out the case contains errors: Adrian DOES need a way to learn about the future (the algorithms in this case), so the case is self-contradicting even within a section of a sentence. And the existence of these algorithms has already been excluded clearly and with explanation by the clarification to Verdict #41 (Out of kindness: If the future can not be known as so clearly said and explained there, this of course implies that there can not exist algorithms that predict it.) (And this is the second time Judge Qoymans has to refer to this clarification). Both of these errors are repetitions of errors pointed out before. Also, the "expected side effect" described does not follow at all and is a further inconsistency.

In addition, this case is essentially equivalent to Case #40. From now on, cases equivalent to a previous case, cases containing errors already pointed out, and cases containing multiple errors, will not be treated. This is to save Judge Qoymans' valuable time and to save readers the boredom of reading through repeated cases, and through lists of pointed-out errors rather than verdicts. The task of Judge Qoymans is to issue verdicts, not to point out and explain errors. Although Judge Qoymans hands are always itching to kindly explain and point out any errors and treat each submitted case even if it is a repetition, this measure is taken to protect the good Judge, under his loud protest, from his own kindness and naivety.

Case #42

Let's take a different approach:

Adrian Veidt doesn't need a way to learn about the future, since the war has already begun (not a decade away). And he understands he can stop it by taking a specially genetically engineered bacteria and introducing it to the world's main water sources, leading to its consumption by humans through drinking, resulting with a hundredfold increase in their production of methane exhaust - making thir life generally miserable for some time and causing (as expected) 3 million deaths from choking and house fires - which would quickly lead to a permanent ceasefire between the warring factions in order to combat together this new common threat. But he's running out of time, so he hurries and carries out his ingenious master plan immediately.

Now, he's sitting with the remote control in his hand, ready to save humanity from its doom by a push of a button, and then arrives his friend. Confident, Adrian tells his friend (whom he trusts) what he is going to do. The two argue, then fight for the remote, which falls down to the ground and gets pressed "on" by it. Adrian says (lies) "See?! Now there's nothing you can do!", his friend replies "I know you're lying. Now turn that off!", and they fight for it again, this time Adrian has the upper hand and knocks out the friend. Then he realizes the friend is right after all, and turns off the remote. The End.

What is the verdict for the friend and for Adrian?

Verdict #42

Adrian is guilty of knocking out the friend. Punishment: 1) Forty lashes with a one metre long and one centimetre thick Spanish straw that has been soaked in salt water for twelve hours. 2) A compensation of € 100 000 to be paid to the friend by Adrian. 3) Suspended death, to be effectuated upon repeat.

In addition, it is pointed out the case contains a serious error; Adrian DOES need to learn about the future in this scenario, to know if the plan for stopping the war would work, and the same applies to this as mentioned in the clarification to Verdict #41. Also, considering Adrian's plans and schemes, he very obviously is not the most intelligent person on Earth but rather mediocre, the friend for instance being far more intelligent.

Case #41

After Adrian Veidt set the countdown (By pushing a button, so it's automatic now) to the prevention of armageddon, a friend of his learns about this accidentally and attempts to reverse what Adrian had done. Three different scenarios:

1) The friend resets the button (back to armageddon).
2) The friend convinces Adrian he has acted wrongly, and Adrian sets it all back to armageddon.
3) Adrian kills his friend to stop him from ending the world.

What are the verdicts for Adrian and for his friend in each scenario?

Verdict #41

Scenario 1): Adrian is guilty of attempted mass murder. Punishment: 1) Suspended death. 3) The punished is alerted to the following clarification:

For clarity it is pointed out that the future can not be known with this degree of certainty and detail and on this scale, and if it could, this would require the laws of nature to be different from how they are, which would imply an entirely different universe wherein there most likely would not be humans, if it existed or could exist at all. Adrian therefore is a mistaken doom prophet and must be stopped.

Scenarios 2) and 3): Only one case at a time is allowed to be submitted. Following cases can be submitted after studying the verdict of the preceding case only.

Case #40

Adrian Veidt is the most intelligent individual on earth. He calculates a 99% probability that all human life (~8 billion) will end in one decade by a cataclysmic war. But, he discovers a way to prevent this war from happenning- by sacrificing a few million human lives in a hoax that only he could pull off. He decides to go for it, and kills 3 million innocent people, deeply traumatizing another 5 million in the process.
Is he guilty of murder? If so, what shall his punishment be?

Verdict #40

Yes. Guilty of mass murder. Punishment: 1) and 3) Death. 2) The proceeds of his bodily remains (e.g. organs for transplantation) will go to the traumatized and the surviving relatives of the murdered.

Case #39

A man really hates his wife and plans to kill her. The day he wants to kill her, he learns that his wife is terminally ill. She asks him to help her die, because she is afraid of the pain she will have. The man decides not to kill her and tells her that the law prohibits him to help her die (which is true). In stead he watches her die an excruciating painfull death and laughs at her during her last moments of total agony. (all medications she had received could not have prevented this to happen. The only thing that could have prevented this was an early death).

Is the man guilty of something? How would that be proven and what should be his punishment?

Verdict #39

Yes. Guilty of neglecting to aid a person in extremity. The matter of proof is irrelevant as a case submitted to Judge Qoymans is considered to have been completely and accurately described; Also, the question exactly what constitutes "proof" is a philosophical, and not so much an ethical or judicial one. Punishment: 1) The man will be denied the luxury of anaesthetic or pain killers for the rest of his life, including during medical treatment; 2) The possible surviving relatives of the wife become the heirs of the man; 3) The man will not be allowed to have a wife or girlfriend again.

In addition, it is pointed out that the prohibition of euthanasia is of limited relevance as in matters of life and death one must sometimes take the law into one's own hands and violate regulations. In trivial matters on the other hand, one must always follow the rules; For instance, one must wait for a red traffic light, even when there is no crossing traffic.

Archived verdicts