2006-06-26 08:06:48 · 11 answers · asked by Ms Bleu 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
innocent to be locked up. if someone has a propensity for criminal behavior, there is a chance they will meet justice eventually.
2006-06-26 08:14:07 · answer #1 · answered by adprokc 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say letting the guilty go free is worse, though it depends. If the innocent person is in the middle of a project that is about to make a major contribution to society then locking up the innocent could be worse. ( For example an innocent on the verge of success genetic researcher as opposed to an innocent unemployed welfare recepient)
2006-06-26 15:24:55 · answer #2 · answered by tyreanpurple 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An innocent being locked up is the worst. It would be a heart breaking thing to go through knowing you believed in the justice system but all of a sudden lost your freedom over a mistake that would last a life time.
A guilty person going free would probably end up back in the penal system sooner or later. They live a wretched life and think there is no other way out but down.
2006-06-26 15:18:43 · answer #3 · answered by Yahoo answer dude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is worse for the innocent to be locked up. In an imperfect system (as you have so aptly noted) one or the other must occur on occasion. While it is unfortunate that the guilty would have to go free sometimes as a consequence, it makes more sense to keep the burden of proof high to prove a crime. It could be too easily abused if innocent people got locked up due to low burden of proof (see Guantanamo Bay).
2006-06-26 15:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by zw88 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what the guilty did. If it is a choice between having a savage mass rapist and murderer in society and having an innocent man locked away... I choose keeping the innocent man in jail to protect the "greater good". It isn't right to ever lock up an innocent man, but sometimes it is necessary. (What is necessary isn't always right)
2006-06-26 15:11:20 · answer #5 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is FAR worse for the innocent to be locked up, because the guilty person of that crime is still free. Creating extra victims of us all because we have removed a contributing person from society. Not only that, we are paying our taxes for the wrong incarceration.
2006-06-26 15:23:55 · answer #6 · answered by thinker 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Innocence in a cage is worse. I'd rather for the guilty to go free because Jesus turned the other cheek.
2006-06-26 15:14:46 · answer #7 · answered by jack f 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the innocent to be locked up, but I can certainly understand someone choosing the opposite.
2006-06-26 15:11:41 · answer #8 · answered by -j. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
another way to look at it: if you lock up an innocent and let the guilty go free, who is affected the most? the innocent and those that care about him/her? or the guilty and all his/her victims/potential victims?
2006-06-26 15:13:16 · answer #9 · answered by JLT 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say for the guilty to go free. At least some of the guilty probably repent for whatever they've done.
2006-06-26 15:12:27 · answer #10 · answered by Rach 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋