NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a reason for asking this, but I'll not give it for now.

Protecting the innocent.

I voted for punishing the guilty.

Punish the guilty and the innocent will be protected!

Protecting the innocent.

Punish the guilty and the innocent will be protected!

not necessarily

This is kind of vague, but I have to go with punishing the guilty because if they aren't punished, they're likely to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.

This is kind of vague, but I have to go with punishing the guilty because if they aren't punished, they're likely to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.

what should that matter, since the innocent are being protected?

This is kind of vague, but I have to go with punishing the guilty because if they aren't punished, they're likely to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.

what should that matter, since the innocent are being protected?

It amounts to the same thing, I'd say-whatever they're doing is most likely harming innocents.

but guilt could be, say, doing drugs or ripping the tags off matresses or attempting suicide.

also, while you are out hunting the guilty to punish them, five more innocents could get hurt

Protect the innocent.

Punish guilty: Currently-innocents get to do bad things to innocents
Protect innocent: No one can do bad things to innocents

"It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail."

Or something like that.

I went with protecting the innocent, because despite my agnosticism, I'm a believer in karma. I believe the guilty will have their actions catch up with them eventually--the universe has a way of balancing itself out in the end.

Protecting the innocent, though both are important.

Protecting the innocent. I don't like to punish or hurt people, and this way it won't matter what the guilty do because the innocent will be protected. So win-win!

~Freebz

Neither one is more important than the other.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Protect the innocent (esp children)

Since the two things are not equivalent, it comes down to whether you prefer punishing or protecting people in general, whether or not they are guilty or innocent.

Protect the innocent.

An eye for an eye only leads to a nation of the blind.

Protecting the innocent is always more important than protecting the guilty, because the guilty are always wrong if they feel guilty.

Protecting the innocent every time. It's more important to stop the Nazis rounding up the Jews [or insert any other example of genocide/mass murder here] than it is to hang the Nazis afterwards.

Also, many "guilty" people need help. I'm not saying that every murderer, rapist, terrorist or burglar needs rehabilitation, but a lot of the time the cause of a crime or series of crimes goes beyond the immediate factors and can be the result of extraordinary circumstances.

Aidan

Protect the innocent.

An eye for an eye only leads to a nation of the blind.
That quote is quite overused. Anyhow, if you take a hundred enemy eyes for every one of yours, then pretty soon the enemy will be blind, what? :)
Anyhow, I shall hazard a guess that this relates to the judicial system. To that end, I voted protecting the innocent, as criminals already escape in droves. Other than that, I would say punish the guilty, as being proactive will do more to protect the innocent than anything else. Though this answer is, of course, subject to change depending on the particulars of the proposed scenario.

Protecting the inoccent

jim

*edit* The protection of the innocent takes precedent over the rights of the offender. Tough shit but that as it should be.

Protect the innocent.

An eye for an eye only leads to a nation of the blind.Sometimes, though, turning the other cheek leads to a nation where only the enemy has eyes. ~ Michael.