NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently thought about this, and I have no idea. Its a serious topic. It shows how bad the courts really are. An Innocent man can be sentanced to life, while a Guilty man can walk free.

Thoughts?

It's obviously worse to let the innocent man go to jail.

How? If you let the man go to jail, sure its bad, but then again, the person who is NOT going to jail, the man who killed, is mearly given the thought that he can get away with this. Thus he is likely to kill again. Now, on one side, two people die, and on the other one is given a horrible remainer of his life. Now, Which can be worse? A man in jail doesn't nessersarly have it amazingly horrible ((Although it is very bad, he is not dead)) Yet then the dead people have it forever gone. Please, don't just say something without explaining yourself.

It's obviously worse to let the innocent man go to jail.

I agree.

Its worse to let a Guily Man( Wacko-Jacko ) walk free...Dirty Bastard..

Very well, my opinion is certainly influenced by the personal bias of having to cope with the crimes committed by the Nazis. One of their philosophies was to arrest 10 innocents rather than let 1 guilty man go free.
In my opinion, justice is there to protect the people, and granted it fails occasionally. But if it was used to harm people in the first place, it becomes a hollowed out institution. Preferring to jail the innocent (or risking to jail the innocent) rather than to let the guilty possibly get away with it is a first step on the way to totalitarianism.
What's more, it's litteraly Terrorism. Terror comes from the French Terreur, which was a type of government during the revolution. Robespierre set up a regime of fear, in which everyone could denounce anyone of being a Royalist, ending with the latter's execution.
That kind of mentality sets the stage for repression of the worst sort. If we didn't have in dubio pro reo (in doubt for the defendant) as the basis for law, anyone could denounce someone, and if it was only one word against the other, the court would decide in favor of locking the person away. This blatant lack of security isn't what I'd like to live in.

If it´s better inprison a man that is innocent, to be sure that all the "bad guys" will be sent to prison, then why not send everybody to prison to be sure that no scumbags walks the street, is that what you meen? sounds kinda scary...

Well, it would be better to harm the innocent man. It may not be fair but to let a guilty man go free, endangers us all. Ultimately just as people are asked to make sacrifices in war for our country, we must also make sacrifices for justice in our country.

Well, it would be better to harm the innocent man. It may not be fair but to let a guilty man go free, endangers us all. Ultimately just as people are asked to make sacrifices in war for our country, we must also make sacrifices for justice in our country.

WHAT!? How can letting a guilty man walk free be BETTER than putting an innocent man in prison?

What are you on?

Holyawesomeness:

That kind of thinking simply enables the government to cut corners and be sloppy. It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be deprived of his essential rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or perhaps that whole Declaration of Independence thing should just be thrown out the window...

Well, it would be better to harm the innocent man. It may not be fair but to let a guilty man go free, endangers us all. Ultimately just as people are asked to make sacrifices in war for our country, we must also make sacrifices for justice in our country.
In that case, what would get you free if not innocence? You might think differently if you were locked in jail or executed for no valid reason.

It is worse to let the innocent man go to jail. No ones life should be ruined on the off chance that they may have commited a crime. As long as a decent percentage of crimes are solved the deterant to crime still exists.

I am not advising that we lock up every innocent man. However, by living in a society we do ultimately have to give up some freedom. Now I do admit that it would be a tragedy if an innocent man gets put away by accident, it might be worse if Jack Miko is allowed to remain free to molest children or something that can have harm for years to come. Ultimately, society must put the needs of the many over the few, and in all matters such as these the ends must justify the means.

It is better to let a guilty man go free. There is no crime in letting a guilty man free...It is a shame, and it is disappointing, but we are fallible humans, and must expect to make mistakes occasionally. However, wrongfully imprisoning a man for a crime he has not committed IS a crime against that man. That's the whole basis for "innocent until proven guilty".

I am not advising that we lock up every innocent man. However, by living in a society we do ultimately have to give up some freedom.

This is all I read from your post. I don't care to go any further, because I find this disgusting enough.

Holyawesomeness:

What of the entire philosophical thought, spurned by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, that government is nothing more than a social contract between the people and the government, and should the government ever deny the natural rights (including life, liberty, and the ownership of property one has worked for) of the people or any single person, then that government should be disassembled at once.

The fact that the United State's founding documents (Chiefly, the Declaration of Independence) asserts this very philosophical arguement clearly demonstrates that we must stray in the direction of the natural rights of people.

You speak of sacrifices. Clearly the loss of a few lives (in the case of a murderer somehow allowed to go free) justifies the freedom of the people and the ability to hold their natural rights, yes? The ends justify the means?

I am not advising that we lock up every innocent man. However, by living in a society we do ultimately have to give up some freedom. Now I do admit that it would be a tragedy if an innocent man gets put away by accident, it might be worse if Jack Miko is allowed to remain free to molest children or something that can have harm for years to come. Ultimately, society must put the needs of the many over the few, and in all matters such as these the ends must justify the means.
With that kind of mentality, it's only a matter of time before "Schutzhaft" (Protective Costudy used by the Nazis to "protect" themselves from political dissidents) becomes a harsh reality. That is one freedom I'm unwilling to surrender.

Look, the right to life of the many is more important than the right of life for the few. It would be a perfect system if we could avoid both excesses, however, it can be difficult to do. However, this is where a choice must be made between the safety of society and the freedom of a very few people(or at least that is what I am assuming, innocent prisoners as a small statistic not 1/2 of the prison population). Ultimately, it is better that a majority of people have better lives, safe from the cruelty of man, even at the cost of a minority whose lives have been made worse by the folly of man.

I am not big on the idea of natural rights of freedom that are inalienable. After all, our country asks us to give up life, to give up liberty and to give up happiness (or property) in order to pursue the greater good of all men who dwell in that land. If at all possible these things are restored, but if not then it is a loss in the name of the greater good. Yes, I would angry if I were falsely accused but I would be angrier if I suffered brain damage or crippling injury from a villain's assualt.

...or at least that is what I am assuming, innocent prisoners as a small statistic not 1/2 of the prison population... That certainly depends on where you are. The concentration camps hardly had any real criminals, they were filled with innocnents. There's a lot of criticism of the US justice system, namely that innocence is based on how big your wallet is.
All arguements to the contrary, its in dubio pro reo that prevents anyone from being lifted off the street and into a prison cell.

Ultimately, it is better that a majority of people have better lives, safe from the cruelty of man, even at the cost of a minority whose lives have been made worse by the folly of man.
What is the better life? To live free of fear is what I want. I agree that I don't want to be killed, but I fear being imprisoned falsely a slightly scarier thought, especially since its such a harsh reality all over the world.

The lack of faith in man's natural rights is rather stirring, I'm afraid. Though I'm it's oft-quoted, I will put it up once more...

“He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
-Thomas Jefferson

One can never be perfectly safe. There are varying degrees of safety and security. However, liberty is a yes or no proposition. You either are free or you are not free. You cannot be "less free" than another man.

Putting innocent men in jail DOES not mean that no criminals will walk the streets. Criminals will still exist, both first-time offenders (who won't be affected, innocent men or not in prison) and the guilty who got away anyway.

While one cannot effectively dispute the government putting one into prison, one very well can effectively engage a criminal. So long as one is free, of course.

Look, if we are speaking of matters on genocidal crimes by the government itself that is a different story. I strongly disagree with intended injustice, my excuse for the innocent is that it is unintentional. I do see the point of imprisonment being so common that it is a crime perpetuated by the government. Obviously under that circumstance a crack-down must be put in place, after all to be too sloppy is a crime in itself, but to be a little paranoid is more tolerable. Besides liberty and security may exist in varying degrees, and to say that liberty is that important is a bit of an exaggeration.

I would be willing to go so far as to say that liberty is several magnitudes more important than security. Security is for the people to sieze for themselves. Liberty is for the people to own from birth to death.

Really what is needed is reform more than anything anyway. Our prisons are not extremely effective, what we need are re-education/work camps to make sure that the citizens can take part in society after their experience. For those who are doomed to die, I think we should have work/death camps, after all what difference does life make to one who is no longer alive? To a certain extent being sent to death is the same as being dead and the morality of life holds no sway over the dead. But really my insistance on the punishment of the guilty is probably more because I am anal-retentive like that, Martha Stewart has her food and decorations, I have my insistance on ruining people's lives.

Well, it would be better to harm the innocent man. It may not be fair but to let a guilty man go free, endangers us all. Ultimately just as people are asked to make sacrifices in war for our country, we must also make sacrifices for justice in our country.

Nonesense, we are all perpetually at risk from each other because of the crimes not yet committed, you rational would have us all locked up. We choose to live with risk because it helps keep us sane and is called freedom!

Look, if we are speaking of matters on genocidal crimes by the government itself that is a different story. I strongly disagree with intended injustice, my excuse for the innocent is that it is unintentional. I do see the point of imprisonment being so common that it is a crime perpetuated by the government. Obviously under that circumstance a crack-down must be put in place, after all to be too sloppy is a crime in itself, but to be a little paranoid is more tolerable. Besides liberty and security may exist in varying degrees, and to say that liberty is that important is a bit of an exaggeration.
Unintentional imprisonement of innocents becomes a problem when it is taken into account as a sad but necessary evil. That leads to worse. It is important to fight the imprisonment of innocents, because if we don't, it might become a habit.

You know Rhoderick, that is a good point. We should all be locked up and brainwashed for the good of the state and society. Ok that is a little extreme but ultimately freedom is a fools desire, without security we have nothing, not even freedom itself. Ultimately the desire to be free must submit to the desire for security because security is what keeps us alive and allows us to be free in the end. Fortunately for most people who are posting most 1st world nations offer both, as well unfortunately most 3rd world nations offer neither.

Guilty man go free, no doubt about it.

But there should never be so much security that liberty of the innocent is infringed upon. It no longer becomes security but government-forwarded terrorism.

Guilty man go free, no doubt about it.
Explain why, please.

Unintentional imprisonement of innocents becomes a problem when it is taken into account as a sad but necessary evil. That leads to worse. It is important to fight the imprisonment of innocents, because if we don't, it might become a habit.
Well, we can not rest on our laurels while the government is failing its duty in one way or another. Over time with improved technology and attention it might be possible to purge the wicked with the least harm to those who are not responsible for crimes against the state.

Well, we can not rest on our laurels while the government is failing its duty in one way or another. Over time with improved technology and attention it might be possible to purge the wicked with the least harm to those who are not responsible for crimes against the state.
True, but my problem with your arguements is that they seem to accept imprisonment of the innocent. If society began to think like this, there wouldn't be anything to stop whomever from making it a habit.

Explain why, please.

well you see the guilty man could be a murderer or terrorist, and then do exactly the same thing again, and kill many innocent poeple, so it is better to take 1 innocent persons freedom than to take many innocent peoples lives.

Yeah, well I am a totalitarian. My beliefs are filled with easy opportunities for corruption that anyone who knows anything about the 20th century dictators could see. Ultimately the sum of the totalitarian philosophy is safety first, especially for the almighty leader who fears everything even the little bunny rabbits. I can see the flaws in both sides and really in a situation such as this, to claim an absolute right is difficult and only certain after much study on the subject and such which I know that I do not have.

well you see the guilty man could be a murderer or terrorist, and then do exactly the same thing again, and kill many innocent poeple, so it is better to take 1 innocent persons freedom than to take many innocent peoples lives.
But by taking that one innocent person's freedom, you set the precedent for taking thousands of innocent persons' freedoms. In the end, less people suffer due than would have if the terrorist or murderer had gone free.

But by taking that one innocent person's freedom, you set the precedent for taking thousands of innocent persons' freedoms. In the end, less people suffer due than would have if the terrorist or murderer had gone free.

what? if you let one guilty person go free, you set the precedent for letting lots of guilty people walk free to kill. this works both ways you know.

what? if you let one guilty person go free, you set the precedent for letting lots of guilty people walk free to kill. this works both ways you know.
But what you don't do is turn the state into a terror regime. Terror regimes have done more harm to their citizens in the past, mainly because they don't want to relinquish the power they wield.

Heck both options are bad so why not compromise? We will let the guilty walk free and send all innocent people to jail. It is the perfect compromise.

Heck both options are bad so why not compromise? We will let the guilty walk free and send all innocent people to jail. It is the perfect compromise.
The Nazis tried that.

And it was effective. After all he only killed 8 million. And let us just assume that there were 1 billion people on the planet at the time. Killing .8% of the world's population unjustly inorder to protect the people of one nation from terror is clearly worth it.(I am just joking, the holocaust was a horrible act)

It's worse to let the innocent man go to jail.

If the guilty man goes free, there's a chance that he might kill someone else (I take it we're talking about someone murdering someone else?). On the other hand, if an innocent man is locked up... then it's a gurantee that he won't be able to live a life again. Everyone (probably including members of his family) will think he's guilty, so it's all completely ruined. There's no "he might not be hurt by this decision" he will be hurt by that decision.

The point of the system is to protect people. When it hurts someone who is not willing to be hurt for it (like cops, firefighters and soldiers, they willingly join those services and they're heroes for it), then it's worthless.

By doing that, everyone is saying that it's okay for anyone to give up freedom for a little bit of safety that might not even happen. In life nothing is safe though. Anything can happen at any point whatsoever, so it's better for people to have the freedom to actually live life without worrying about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than completely messing up innocent peoples' lives on the grounds that it helps in some sort of way. But then the law is the offender, not even the person who did the crime.

I'm thinking that didn't make sense, oh well.

From James Kunen's book "How Can You Defend Those People".


We find in the rules , [that] we are to look upon it as more beneficial that many guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is because it is of more importance to [the] community that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt should be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished, and many times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to the public whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemmed, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, "It is immaterial to me whether I behave well
or ill, for virtue itself is no security." And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject there would be an end to all security whatsoever.

-John Adams

This was his final argument in defense of the British soldiers accused of commiting murders at the Boston Massacre.

To put so bluntly, I would rather live one day with liberty, than a thousand secure days. What good is security without liberty? If we sacrifice our liberty for relative security, then what good is that security? So that we may live another day as a slave? It is a shame that a guilty man walks free, it is an atrocity that an innocent man is put to jail.

It's worse to let the innocent man go to jail.

If the guilty man goes free, there's a chance that he might kill someone else (I take it we're talking about someone murdering someone else?). On the other hand, if an innocent man is locked up... then it's a gurantee that he won't be able to live a life again. Everyone (probably including members of his family) will think he's guilty, so it's all completely ruined. There's no "he might not be hurt by this decision" he will be hurt by that decision.

The point of the system is to protect people. When it hurts someone who is not willing to be hurt for it (like cops, firefighters and soldiers, they willingly join those services and they're heroes for it), then it's worthless.

By doing that, everyone is saying that it's okay for anyone to give up freedom for a little bit of safety that might not even happen. In life nothing is safe though. Anything can happen at any point whatsoever, so it's better for people to have the freedom to actually live life without worrying about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than completely messing up innocent peoples' lives on the grounds that it helps in some sort of way. But then the law is the offender, not even the person who did the crime.

I'm thinking that didn't make sense, oh well.

I completely agree, and welcome to nationstates!

Worse to let an innocent man go to jail.

both are equally bad. one removes the freedom of the individual, the other threatens the safety of the people around the freed guilty (and if found innocent, Double Jepordy makes it harder to re-try that person for the same crime)

It's obviously worse to let the innocent man go to jail.

Unquestionably. I'd go so far as to say that it would be better to let ten guilty men go free than send one innocent man to jail. To me, this line of thought is the basis for "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt."

I agree with the majority of the posters here; it is far worse to imprison an innocent man than to release a guilty one. The fundamental purpose of our system of justice is to protect and defend the innocent. We lock people up for the offense of depriving others of their lives, liberty, or property. If the government itself deprives the innocent of those rights, how can it claim any moral authority whatsoever over its people?

Unquestionably. I'd go so far as to say that it would be better to let ten guilty men go free than send one innocent man to jail. To me, this line of thought is the basis for "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt."but the majority of the Innocents that go to jail is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. unfortunatly, the same can be said for the Guilty who get freed.

but the majority of the Innocents that go to jail is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. unfortunatly, the same can be said for the Guilty who get freed.

Junii, I understand that, it's a failing in the US system that it isn't 100% accurate. Nothing that involves the thoughts and interpretations of human beings can be. That's the nature of humanity. For that reason, the US system is set up to err on the side that each accused is innocent. Obviously, in spite of that, the system has still failed and jailed innocents. It's a failing in our system. I would wager that we've probably freed far more guilty accuseds than jailed innocents, though.

In a perfect world, we'd always get it right. Since we can't, the inherent bias has to be to avoid sending the innocent to jail. (Or at least that is my opinion.)

Edited for formatting.

"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

Not quite sure who said it but I believe it. Living becomes empty when you cannot live it how you want to.

It's bad, but they kind of cancel each other out and if you are sentenced and ARE innocent then when you get out you might want revenge so that could make you bad. Then again letting a guilty man walk free could turn that man's life around and he could turn good. So good can turn bad, and bad can turn good. There are always different outcomes of everything. Honestly both ways are bad, whose to say which is worse? Surely not me or you.

Unquestionably. I'd go so far as to say that it would be better to let ten guilty men go free than send one innocent man to jail. To me, this line of thought is the basis for "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt."

QFE.

In addition, you seem to believe that whilst the guilty man who goes free will cause harm to society (Admittedly likely), an innocent man's imprisonment won't do harm except to him. What about his wife and children? What about his career, especially if he employs other people? It's a stretch, but if someone is imprisoned and their small business falls apart, the people who became unemployed might turn to crime. And in any case, great damage is done to the faith these people have in the legal system, which is never good.

Junii, I understand that, it's a failing in the US system that it isn't 100% accurate. Nothing that involves the thoughts and interpretations of human beings can be. That's the nature of humanity. <i>For that reason</i>, the US system is set up to err on the side that each accused is innocent. Obviously, in spite of that, the system has still failed and jailed innocents. <b>It's a failing in our system.<b> I would wager that we've probably freed far more guilty accuseds than jailed innocents, though.

In a perfect world, we'd always get it right. Since we can't, the inherent bias has to be to avoid sending the innocent to jail. (Or at least that is my opinion.)and it's for that fallibility that I say both are equally bad.

You let a guilty person free, and that person kills again, that is just as much a failure of the system as if an innocent goes into Jail. To say one is worse than another is being narrow-minded and only thinking of the person on trial, not the victims and their survivors.

besides, even if the Innocent goes free, their lives are still in major need of repair, you have those that will refuse to believe their innocence (think OJ Simpson) and will have that accusation haunting them for the rest of their lives.

The only thing one can do, is to keep working on the system and sealing the cracks untill no one slips through.

QFE.

In addition, you seem to believe that whilst the guilty man who goes free will cause harm to society (Admittedly likely), an innocent man's imprisonment won't do harm except to him. What about his wife and children? What about his career, especially if he employs other people? It's a stretch, but if someone is imprisoned and their small business falls apart, the people who became unemployed might turn to crime. And in any case, great damage is done to the faith these people have in the legal system, which is never good.

You're making my argument for me. We're on the same side. We should do everything possible to avoid jailing an innocent. If that means that someone who is guilty has gone free, that was the unfortunate consequence of protecting the rights of the innocent.


(Or did I misunderstand? :confused: )

" It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man"

Enough said..

Let a guilty man walk free obviously. If he reoffends then he will be caught, if he doesnt he may have deserved a second chance. Letting an innocent man go down is a definition of failure in the legal system.

Let a guilty man walk free obviously. If he reoffends then he will be caught, if he doesnt he may have deserved a second chance. Letting an innocent man go down is a definition of failure in the legal system.

That is a great way to put it into words. Well said!

Let a guilty man walk free obviously. If he reoffends then he will be caught, if he doesnt he may have deserved a second chance. Letting an innocent man go down is a definition of failure in the legal system.and what would you tell the latest victims (non fatal crime) or their survivors (fatal crime) when they realize that you (law enforcement) had the perp and let him go?

and what would you tell the latest victims (non fatal crime) or their survivors (fatal crime) when they realize that you (law enforcement) had the perp and let him go?

What if you were that innocent man? Would you still feel the same?

I recently thought about this, and I have no idea. Its a serious topic. It shows how bad the courts really are. An Innocent man can be sentanced to life, while a Guilty man can walk free.

Thoughts?

Think of it this way. If an innocent man is sent to prison for a crime, then the one who is truly guilty is still walking the streets, and since people will naturally feel that the true criminal has already been caught, they will unconciously lax their nervous feelings. This will make it even easier for the free guilty man to do it again.

If a guilty man is let free, however, people will still be naturally suspicious of the man, and he will most likely be watched much closer. In this case, his chances of commiting the crime again are lowered.

What if you were that innocent man? Would you still feel the same?which is why I say both are wrong. however, as the innocent man I would be happy that the truth came out, and go back and rebuild my life. I know my family and true friends would stand by me and help out. If I was successful, I would also help other wrongfully imprisioned to rebuild their lives. A lawsuit would not even fit into the picture unless the police were unduly harassing me after I got out.

How I would feel about the police after that? I can't say. but I hope I will remember that they do have a tough job and that I can forgive them their mistakes.

and what would you tell the family of the victim that the killer was in your jail but was let go?

Think of it this way. If an innocent man is sent to prison for a crime, then the one who is truly guilty is still walking the streets, and since people will naturally feel that the true criminal has already been caught, they will unconciously lax their nervous feelings. This will make it even easier for the free guilty man to do it again.

If a guilty man is let free, however, people will still be naturally suspicious of the man, and he will most likely be watched much closer. In this case, his chances of commiting the crime again are lowered.and at the same time, the innocent man is set free, but is still watched by the people for some will always think he's guilty. Case in point. OJ Simpson. he was found innocent yet he is still thought of as Guilty.

How? If you let the man go to jail, sure its bad, but then again, the person who is NOT going to jail, the man who killed, is mearly given the thought that he can get away with this. Thus he is likely to kill again. Now, on one side, two people die, and on the other one is given a horrible remainer of his life. Now, Which can be worse? A man in jail doesn't nessersarly have it amazingly horrible ((Although it is very bad, he is not dead)) Yet then the dead people have it forever gone. Please, don't just say something without explaining yourself.

You're assuming the guilty guy is guilty of murder, or something violent. That's not necessarily true.

Looks like the question should be split...

Is it worse to execute an innocent man for murder, or let a man guilty of the same crime walk freely?

Is it worse to wrongly charge a man for a parking fine than it is to let a man truly guilty of the same parking violation not pay the fine?

More importantly, to you, does the brevity of the crime even matter?

You're making my argument for me. We're on the same side. We should do everything possible to avoid jailing an innocent. If that means that someone who is guilty has gone free, that was the unfortunate consequence of protecting the rights of the innocent.


(Or did I misunderstand? :confused: )

No, no you got me just about nailed on the head there. I agree with you 100% on this. The rights of the innocent are more important than the punishment of the guilty. Otherwise there's no point in even going after the guilty.

Sorry, I re-read my post, my 'you seem to believe' comment was directed at the thread in general, not at you specifically :p

it is worse to let the innocent person go to jail. while it is frustrating beyond belief to let the guilty go free, better this then "punishing" the wrong person. with insight or preparation, you should be able to justly punish the "right" or guilty person.

And it was effective. After all he only killed 8 million. And let us just assume that there were 1 billion people on the planet at the time. Killing .8% of the world's population unjustly inorder to protect the people of one nation from terror is clearly worth it.(I am just joking, the holocaust was a horrible act)
First off, that is a disgusting thing to joke about. I know it was meant in jest, but I still find it despicable. Also, during that time period, over 11 million people were killed in concentration camps.

It is worse to let an innocent man go to jail. Should I be made to suffer for your crimes? Should my life be ruined because you wouldn't take responsibility for your actions? Should my family live in disgrace for the rest of their lives while you get off scot-free?
For all of you who disagree with me, what about innocent until proven guilty? Obviously, if you are innocent but convicted, you have not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the guilty man goes free, people will most likely still think of him as guilty, and he will be watched closely by his peers, as someone stated above.

Would you tell a holocaust survivor that it's better to condemn the innocent to jail? They were innocent. They were condemned to jail, and many of them to death.

Or maybe you would tell a Japanese-American that the right thing was done in internment camps. Maybe you'd say to them, "Well, we know now that you're innocent, but just in case one of you was guilty, we locked all of you up for the entire war? So basically, your children are dead because our security came before your freedoms, even if you are loyal, patriotic citizens. Sorry about that."


How about this: Is it better to condemn an innocent man to death row, or let a man who should be on death row go free?
For example, would it be better to have let Scott Petersen go free, or to have convicted, say, a family friend who was completely innocent?

First off, that is a disgusting thing to joke about. I know it was meant in jest, but I still find it despicable. Also, during that time period, over 11 million people were killed in concentration camps. agreed.

It is worse to let an innocent man go to jail. Should I be made to suffer for your crimes? Should my life be ruined because you wouldn't take responsibility for your actions? Should my family live in disgrace for the rest of their lives while you get off scot-free?not disagreeing but when the mistake is discovered and corrected, the person can rebuild his life. but when the mistake about the Guilty let free is discovered, someone became the new victim.
For all of you who disagree with me, what about innocent until proven guilty? Obviously, if you are innocent but convicted, you have not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. err wrong, if he was convicted, then he was proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt. otherwise he would be found innocent or the jury hung. most innocents found in jail is discovered in the appeal process. that is what takes the most taxpayers dollars.
If the guilty man goes free, people will most likely still think of him as guilty, and he will be watched closely by his peers, as someone stated above. true, as will the innocent who are proven innocent. the problem is tho, the person is now free from re trial because of Double Jepordy. he has to commit a new crime inorder to be put on trial. However, if the innocent proves his innocent, then the guilty can be hunted down again and tried for those crimes.

Would you tell a holocaust survivor that it's better to condemn the innocent to jail? They were innocent. They were condemned to jail, and many of them to death.for the holocaust victims, they were guilty... of the most rediculous crime concocted by a paranoid madman. they were guilty of being Jews. so the argument doesn't work.

Or maybe you would tell a Japanese-American that the right thing was done in internment camps. Maybe you'd say to them, "Well, we know now that you're innocent, but just in case one of you was guilty, we locked all of you up for the entire war? So basically, your children are dead because our security came before your freedoms, even if you are loyal, patriotic citizens. Sorry about that."most of those Japanese Americans proved their loyalty on the battlefield. most of the interred knew in their minds and agreed with the Why they were being interred. they did make the best of it. and when it was over, they went back and rebuilt their lives.

How about this: Is it better to condemn an innocent man to death row, or let a man who should be on death row go free?
For example, would it be better to have let Scott Petersen go free, or to have convicted, say, a family friend who was completely innocent?
is it better to convict a man like Mr. Petersen's friend to death row or let someone like Jeffery Dalhmer or Charles Manson to go free, and not spend one minute in jail, to live in your neighborhood?

the answer is simple. they are both equally wrong, one isn't worse than the other.

Woah. Just woah. I can't believe what I read:



most of those Japanese Americans proved their loyalty on the battlefield. most of the interred knew in their minds and agreed with the Why they were being interred. they did make the best of it. and when it was over, they went back and rebuilt their lives.

.

You know this how? Why did the Japanese Americans all of a sudden need to prove their loyalty? How do you know that most of the interred knew and agreed with being forced into a concentration camp(A pile of shit by any other name is still a pile of shit)?

I'm sure you'd agree fully if the US government forced you to leave your home, take all of your belongings, and put you into a confined area which was overcrowded, had horrible living conditions, and near starvation(And this was the AMERICAN concentration camps)? All of this without any warning, without any say, without any representation, without any other reason than from where your heritage lies? I find it hard to stomach that you could make such a blatantly stupid, ignorant, and insulting statement. It was a horrible thing for us to do, and there is no justifying it. If we cannot protect the freedom of our citizens, all of our citizens, we have failed miserably as a country, and deserve to be wiped clean from the face of the earth.

Woah. Just woah. I can't believe what I read:



You know this how? Why did the Japanese Americans all of a sudden need to prove their loyalty? How do you know that most of the interred knew and agreed with being forced into a concentration camp(A pile of shit by any other name is still a pile of shit)? Because four of my aunts and Uncles were incarcerated in those concentration camps.

I'm sure you'd agree fully if the US government forced you to leave your home, take all of your belongings, and put you into a confined area which was overcrowded, had horrible living conditions, and near starvation(And this was the AMERICAN concentration camps)? All of this without any warning, without any say, without any representation, without any other reason than from where your heritage lies? I find it hard to stomach that you could make such a blatantly stupid, ignorant, and insulting statement. It was a horrible thing for us to do, and there is no justifying it. If we cannot protect the freedom of our citizens, all of our citizens, we have failed miserably as a country, and deserve to be wiped clean from the face of the earth.Considering what was happening, they understood and strove to prove their loyalty. while they were sad it was happening, they were also attacked by the Japanese, that was a betrayal that hurt more than what the Americans did. They were caught between two worlds and most of them made the choice to side with America. I'm not saying it was all Roses, but they knew what was going on.

It is rather scary that people find this even debatable. Perhaps the ratio of innocent to guilty, but not the concept itself.

Among other reasons, everytime you convict the innocent, you rather obviously allow the actually guilty go free. :headbang:

And, if innocence is no protection from incarceration, why obey the law?

It should be easily accepted that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be convicted.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," says English jurist William Blackstone. The maxim had become part of common law by 1802.

Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

"Again, every one of us would rather acquit a guilty man as innocent than condemn an innocent man as guilty, in a case where a man was accused of enslaving or murder. For in each of these cases if the charges were true we should prefer to vote for their acquittal on the charges against them, rather than to vote for their condemnation, if the charges were untrue. For when there is any doubt one should choose the lesser of two errors. For it is a serious matter to decide in the case of a slave that he is free; but it is much more serious to condemn a free man as a slave." Aristotle, Problems, bk. 29.13, at 951a37-b8 (W.S. Hett trans., Loeb Classical Library 1957)

The Supreme Court first commented on the issue in 1895, when the majority opinion in Coffin v. United States cited Athenian law, Trajan, Fortescue, Hale, and Blackstone all at once, to underscore the long history of the presumption of innocence, but refused to commit to an actual number of guilty men should go free rather than convict an innocent. The Court did not revisit the issue until Henry v. United States (1959), which established that "it is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest."

"Assume that one person out of a thousand will kill. Assume also that an exceptionally accurate test is created which differentiates with 95% effectiveness those who will kill from those who will not. If 100,000 people were tested, out of the 100 who would kill 95 would be isolated. Unfortunately, out of the 99,900 who would not kill, [4995] people would also be isolated as potential killers. In these circumstances, it is clear that we could not justify incarcerating all [5090] people. If, in the criminal law, it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man suffer, how can we say in the civil commitment area that it is better that fifty-four harmless people be incarcerated lest one dangerous man be free?" Thompson v. County of Alameda, 27 Cal. 3d 741 (1980)

Charles Dickens argued "that hundreds of guilty persons should escape," but that they should escape "scot-free." Dickens was, in fact, so generous that hundreds of guilty persons escaping scot-free was not only better than one innocent person suffering -- it was even better "than that the possibility of any innocent man or woman having been sacrificed, should present itself, with the least appearance of reason, to the minds of any class of men!"

Genesis 18:23-32
And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

Commandments for man can be found in the book of Exodus, by the same Author(s), where God rejects the tradeoff between convicting the guilty and convicting the innocent, and simply commands, "the innocent and righteous slay thou not." Exodus 23:7.