NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could only choose one, which would you choose as being the most important?

Protecting the innocent. Obviously.

(All systems go to kill the poor tonight...)

Punishing the guilty.

Protecting the innocent.

By punishing the guilty aren't you at the same time protecting the innocent? And vice versa.

By punishing the guilty aren't you at the same time protecting the innocent? And vice versa.
Aah.. Arent you guilty after you have done something?

Innocent if you havnt done anything, if the innocent are protected will anyone have a chance to do anything that would be cause them to be considered guilty going on the noting that there is no such thing as a victomless crime?

Aah.. Arent you guilty after you have done something?

Innocent if you havnt done anything, if the innocent are protected will anyone have a chance to do anything that would be cause them to be considered guilty going on the noting that there is no such thing as a victomless crime?

That's only valid when assuming that the protection is 100% successful. Fat chance. So, theoretically it's correct, but that's as far as it goes.

Protecting the innocent is of course more important. Punishment only happens after the fact, when it's too late. Protecting is proactive and suggests steps are taken to insure safety, security and honor.

Punishing the guilty...

well personaly if you can fix the problem a soultion falls into order so guilty

Protecting the innocent is of course more important. Punishment only happens after the fact, when it's too late. Protecting is proactive and suggests steps are taken to insure safety, security and honor.Well said.

well i chose protect the innocent but it makes me uneasy
there can be too much protection until it becomes a form of oppression

isnt it for our own good that cigarette taxes are ridiculously high? whats nex? snickers tax? maybe they should make us redesign our bathrooms, lots of innocent people get hurt in the bathroom

isnt protecting us the real reason for making drugs and prostitution illegal?

it can be way overdone.

Punishing the guilty.

That's interesting, I'm glad that the debate has gotten into a much wider view than I'd imagined it. I purposely didn't specify why I'd asked the question, but I will now. On the subject of the death penalty, many people feel that the guilty deserve to be punished, etc., which is fine. However, as we all know, non-guilty people are also executed. Therefore, you have a situation where either you have the death penalty, and innocent people are put to death, or a situation without the death penalty, where guilty people might not be punished enough for their crimes. (Certainly you could say jail is punishment, which is fine.) This is an example of how sometimes by punishing the guilty, you aren't protecting the innocent.

I thought you were talking about the war. hehehe, oops.
I said protecting the innocent. I saw it as a matter of is it worth it to kill innocent people to punish the guilty? and I say no, because if you kill innocent people to punish the guilty, then you are no better than the guilty, and are guilty yourself.

Protecting the innocent.

If you cannot protect those uninvolved or innocent, then you have no right to punish the guilty, no matter how flagrant their guilt. It is wrong to punish the guilty, if you have to also hurt the innocent.

Protecting the innocent.

If we protect the innocent adequately, then the potentially guilty will be foiled in their fiendish schemes, and thus no one is hurt.

The guilty are left at worst as guilty of conspiring or planning to do something, rather than actually carrying it out.

(Assuming of course that we limit the discussion to simple crimes against the person: when we look at things like pollution of the environment, then things get less clear cut, unless we classify non-human things as amongst the innocent...)

Protecting the innocent is of course more important. Punishment only happens after the fact, when it's too late. Protecting is proactive and suggests steps are taken to insure safety, security and honor.

Imagine a lawless state, then one day you decide you want to protect the innocent, and you install institutions to protect the suppossedly innocent. And by creating those institutions (writen law, police, etc) you already punish the guilty because suddenly commiting a crime has become a more dangerous enterprise.

So, protecting the innocent implies that you are automatically punishing the guilty by making crime less attractive, more dangerous.

And to say that one is more important than the other makes NO SENSE AT ALL. One can't go without the other. lol Without protecting there is no punishing and without punishing there is no protecting. So again, it makes no sense to say one is more important than the other.

it has long been a principal of american justice that its better to let a dozen guilty go free than to convict one innocent man

i was very disturbed when a few years back the supreme court ruled that it was OK to execute an innocent man as long as he had received a fair trial

meaning that if at the last minute exhonerating evidence came to light, it was OK to continue with the execution as long as the whole trial had been fair to begin with

So, protecting the innocent implies that you are automatically punishing the guilty by making crime less attractive, more dangerous.


Nah, doesn't follow.

Lets draw a parallel:

If you wanted to protect yourself whilst playing a rough sport, you would put on padding, and pay attention instead of being reckless - how would this punish anyone?

Punishing the innocent

This is one of those "what came first? The chicken or the egg" type questions..lol

I picked protecting the innocent, I'm a parent. I'd rather protect my children from any thing ever happening in the first place, then punishing the bastard that hurts them after the fact.

Nah, doesn't follow.

Lets draw a parallel:

If you wanted to protect yourself whilst playing a rough sport, you would put on padding, and pay attention instead of being reckless - how would this punish anyone?

Invalid analogy and you know it :p

Hint: there is no guilty party in the criminal sense in your comparison.

From both a logical and moral point: protecting the innocent. Logically, it's the only option that will stop them from doing more harm that isn't illegal. Morally, it's not mankinds place to punish the guilty.

Probably punishing the guilty.

Invalid analogy and you know it :p

Hint: there is no guilty party in the criminal sense in your comparison.

Not if the other team are trying to play dirty, and are renowned for sticking a knee in the groin or something: your box protects you.

I'd say punishing the innocent. Isn't that why we have capitalism?

I'd say punishing the innocent. Isn't that why we have capitalism?

*applause*

I, of course, chose protecting the innocent. But, the question is how. To do so without focussing on punishing the guilty (which is one of the main things that is wrong with modern society), we have to look at the causes of crime.

The vast majority of crime is social, thus, the problem is society.
"A society gets all the criminals it deserves." - Emma Goldman

How do we stop junkies mugging people to score money for their fix - prescribe heroin. How do we stop poor people stealing from the rich - socialism. How do we stop socially excluded people from vandalising - reorder society so nobody is excluded. How do we end crimes against property - abolish private property. How do we reduce crimes against the person - reorder the power relations between people to make them equal. A fundamental root and branch reordering of society - such as an anarchist revolution (by which I do not necessarily mean a violent one) - would change the dynamics so much that crime would decrease. Crime is more often than not the attempt of those without power to take some, so, instead, give everyone power.

Vas.

That's interesting, I'm glad that the debate has gotten into a much wider view than I'd imagined it. I purposely didn't specify why I'd asked the question, but I will now. On the subject of the death penalty, many people feel that the guilty deserve to be punished, etc., which is fine. However, as we all know, non-guilty people are also executed. Therefore, you have a situation where either you have the death penalty, and innocent people are put to death, or a situation without the death penalty, where guilty people might not be punished enough for their crimes. (Certainly you could say jail is punishment, which is fine.) This is an example of how sometimes by punishing the guilty, you aren't protecting the innocent.

I don't think the "punishment" that a criminal is sentened to should be looked upon on some sort of vengeance for the victime. It should rather teach him how to live in our society and get along with people etc etc. Therefor death penalty is a very bad thing, you can't learn much in this life by dieing.

edit: missed a "

Imagine a lawless state, then one day you decide you want to protect the innocent, and you install institutions to protect the suppossedly innocent. And by creating those institutions (writen law, police, etc) you already punish the guilty because suddenly commiting a crime has become a more dangerous enterprise.

So, protecting the innocent implies that you are automatically punishing the guilty by making crime less attractive, more dangerous.

And to say that one is more important than the other makes NO SENSE AT ALL. One can't go without the other. lol Without protecting there is no punishing and without punishing there is no protecting. So again, it makes no sense to say one is more important than the other.

I think you see it to black and white. The question isn't what we should do, it's rather what should we do a lill more?

it has long been a principal of american justice that its better to let a dozen guilty go free than to convict one innocent man

i was very disturbed when a few years back the supreme court ruled that it was OK to execute an innocent man as long as he had received a fair trial

meaning that if at the last minute exhonerating evidence came to light, it was OK to continue with the execution as long as the whole trial had been fair to begin with

But that's starts me wondering if it can be called a fair trail if all the evidence hasn't been presented for some reason.

Protecting the innocent BY punishing the guilty

Not if the other team are trying to play dirty, and are renowned for sticking a knee in the groin or something: your box protects you.

Your analogy remains flawed as it is a game that is already designed to protect the innocent / the one's that play fair.

If originally the game was with no other rule but to score than there obviously would be no breaking of the rules, hence no dirty play. Without rules we are all innocent. :)

If you next change the game by adding rules that make forbid certain actions, like a nice kick in the groin, than you have created a potentialy guilty party and a potentially innocent party. And by adding punishment to the breaking of the rules you punish the one's whose intent it is to play the game in a way that according to the rules is forbidden, hence you've already punished them by making those actions risky.