Punish the innocent or free the guilty?, The first of several inquiries into basic po

[OrangeEmpire]

The first of a series of posts of this nature that I intend to make, with a question that probles into basic political philosophy and attitudes towards social organization. This one is not as innocent (if you'll pardon the play on words) as it appears. Acknowledging that neither alternative is really "good", which of the two do you consider the lesser evil? A system in which the guilty sometimes go free, or one in which the innocent sometimes get punished?

Thoughts?

 

[TennTradition]

I think that I have to go with the guilty sometimes go free. I have to think that 1st, if you're a bad person - you're likely to do more than just one bad thing. You may get off once, but you will get caught. The probability of a good (and not-guilty) person being falsely accused or accidentally caught up in a bad event more than once has to be pretty low. I can't stand the thought of an innocent person doing time.

And, if the person who committed the first crime doesn't do anything wrong again - then he/she was obviously no longer an active threat to society (obviously this is hypothetical and only true once the person has lived a life after the initial crime that is free of crime). However, that doesn't make the victim feel any better and doesn't fulfill the role of punishment.

It's not an easy question...but i have to think that a criminal will eventually get his if he keeps on playing that game. The hard part is violent crime (murder, rape, etc.) where the victim (or family of the victim) is so traumatized.

 

[volinbham]

Guilty sometimes go free.

Laws are created by man and change with the times. In short, laws are imperfect. As such, guilt is often a transitory state depending on the prevailing view at the time. Given this imperfection, I see no reason to exacerbate the problem by requiring one prove his/her innocence of a societal creation.

 

[U-T]

I would never vote for someone to go to jail if they are innocent.

I have almost had that happen to me and it was the worst part of my life.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

i guess thats the catch 22 or our system. Sometimes innocent people are put in prison, and people that are guilty as sin go free <cough> OJ Simpson <cough>

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well if you look at it from a purist standpoint you have to see which side presents the best case. A defendant with money and a good lawyer can toss enough doubt where reasonable doubt causes a guy who could be guilty as sin to go free. There are also technicalities where a cop's mistake could send a serial killer back out on the streets.

One way around this is the appeals process. It gives another group of people (jury or judge) a chance to look at the case as well.

I like the fact that DNA is now used. In capital cases I think law enforcement should scour the place for DNA evidence and it should be scientifically scrutinized before sentencing someone to the death penalty. I think the death penalty tends to be a knee jerk reaction to extreme crimes and not enough focus is given to making sure these people do actually deserve death based on all available evidence.

 

[cheeze weazul]

Basic ethics question I ask my students. Classical vs. Positivist

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Without a doubt, option A. No man should be punished for a crime he did not commit.