is it better to punish the innocent or let the guilty go free?

Answer 1

Isn't it the same thing? - Letting the guilty go free is punishing the innocent.

Answer 2

Is it better to punish the innocent or let the guilty go free?

This is an intriguing question. I am thinking why you have asked this question? If I consider your question word-by-word then I find that you have not asked - is it better to punish the innocent AND let the guilty go free? It is the use of the word ‘betters’ then the use of the world ‘or’ that intrigues me further. It suggests a situation where letting go free of the guilty is not ironically related to the unjust punishment of the innocent - both are independent. It considers the case of the innocent or the case of the guilty independent of each other. If for example punishment of the innocent is regarded a better option than it is not in comparison with the letting go of the guilty, it is for some other reason - for the benefit of some unknown value or consideration. What that could be? What could be in of human moral and ethical values that would allow a total reversal of normal judicial treatment? Could it be some discretion? It cannot be compassion, as it would not let the innocent to be punished.

I do not find anything anywhere in human ethical, social, cultural or religious codes of prentices that would make this possible. The only situation where this can happened is where the case is completely misunderstood, or where the spirit of justice is lost altogether due to some unlawful discretion, fear or oppression.

Normally the innocent if proven innocent must be let go free, and the guilty when proved guilty through extensive and exhaustive judicial trials must be punished according to the law. But both will still be independent of each other. A case can have hundred suspects, all when proven innocents must be set free of charge at once. No punishment should be delivered until a guilty person is found.

Answer 3

I believe: Let the guilty go free. Heres why: Letting the guilty go free (we are assuming it was a mistake right?) might make the "guilty" have a chance to make a difference in his life FOR BETTER and change for good!, or he might not for sure, but theres a 50-50 % chance. On the other hand, punishing the innocent will NO WAY HAVE A 50 -50 of anything at all! He will just get sad, and HOW better can he get if he was INNOCENT anyways.
Good Luck in your judgment.....

Answer 4

Why do we have to settle?? We have DNA testing and scientists that can verify the innocence or guilt of someone. Perhaps it might be ok to punish the innocent, not exactly punishment but use them as bait or to trick the guilty into a false sense of security, while the police is actually watching the guilty and be able to catch them eventually.

It is better to have substantial evidence, especially if it's someone dangerous, than to catch them over some minor thing only to let them loose so soon. If you must have an answer, punish the innocent, until the guilty is found. Though , by punishing the innocent, I don't exactly or necessarily mean for the innocent to do jail time. As that would be false incarceration and the innocently jailed may be able to sue the city, or state.

Answer 5

Better to let the guilty go free. To punish an innocent person is very wrong.

Answer 6

A similar type question is whether you prefer fascism versus anarchy as a form of government. The answer is neither. There has to be a balance. The government should do its absolute best to bring the guilty to justice while at the same time trying to make sure that innocents are not punished. Occasionally there will be situations where someone guilty goes free or someone innocent is punished unjustly. Corrections to the judicial process should be made whenever possible to achieve these goals without resort to extreme action.

Answer 7

'Judge not lest ye shall be judged'said Jesus.He does not prevent us from finding fault with others but warns us that we should also be equally prepared for being pointed fingers at.However,everybody is ready,stone in hand, to hit Mary of Magdelia with but when he asked them that the first stone will be thrown by him who has not done any sin the innocent villagers held their hands. So by all means charge anybody and also punish him if the charge is proved but ensure that you who are holding the hangman's rope does not have his hands spoiled. And yes it is necessary to punish the guilty in for nothing at least for warning him that such behaviour cannot be and will not be tolerated. While thus a corporal or other type of punishment would meet this social imperative a more thoroughgoing action would be more effective in avoiding future infractions. Somebody has committed a guilt, he/she has confessed to it or the offence has been proved leaving no room for doubt while punishment would be reasonable the more incumbancy would be to look into why the offencehas been committed. Was he starving and so stolen food? Was he being tormented and so put paid with the tormenter.If this is done honestly it may be found that the real culprit would be somebody else -the society or the tyrant. Punishing the perperator may calm our conscience it will not be the end of the crime. Faced with identical circumstances the same or other would react in the same way with another matter before us to judge upon-a never-ending chain.Under such circumstances it is far better to let the 'guilty' go free and try to bring about a condition where he will not be forced to resort to violence for the same reason. In ancient times it was the king and the guru who were held culpable for the offences committed by the subject and the disciples.That is or should be the real spirit of criminology.

Answer 8

Letting the guilty go free does punish the innocent.

Answer 9

It depends on the behavior you're trying to enforce.
If the behavior is extremely costly, then it may be worthwhile to punish the innocent to make sure that the behavior does not exist.
For example, innocent people are subjected to screening at airports.

However, if the behavior is not as damaging, it may be best to let the guilty go free.

One must weigh the costs of enforcement depending on the situtation.

The fact that one has to choose between punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free, however, does show that there is something wrong in the system. Choosing another framework of judgement or a change in the system itself may be another option.

Answer 10

Interesting question that poses a conflict between my wish for justice and my wish for the innocent to remain that way.

If you punish the innocent, they will suffer and become very unhappy. Unhappy people do unhappy things, so what ends up happening is some of the innocent become the guilty by lashing out at the system that wronged them.

If the guilty go free, they will remain guilty and think they have gotten away with whatever crime has made them guilty. This will cause them to either escalate their crimes, or continue old habits.

If I were forced to take a side, I would lock up all the guilty I could and punish some innocent rather then let those who would do wrong continue their fiendish deeds.

Criminals need to understand that crime is wrong, and punishment does await those who would do it. I want order at all costs, not a chaotic ballet of crime and debauchery.

Answer 11

The traditional answer to this question, which is part of the basis of our legal system, is that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man. That is the reason for requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high legal standard that allows some guilty people to escape conviction, but also protects the innocent.

We seem to live in a more vindictive and scared time now, however, so I don't know how many people would agree with the traditional answer.