If you punish the innocent and let the guilty go free, do you not punish the innocent who deal with guilty?

Question

In other words, if you do not take responsibility and have the balls to recognize this is not an ideal world, and you do not punish the 1 innocent, and let 1000 murderers go, you let 1000 innocents get raped and killed because you rather have moral detachment and take no responsibility.

When good men do nothing...evil flourishes....

Life required hard decisions, so you have to choose

the 1 innocent, or the 1000 innocents who get raped and killed when YOU could have put the guilty behind bars...

Minority Report (the movie) spells our doom, a country that rather not take responsibility, and let million die unecessarily...

But in not taking responsibility because you do not want to deal with the moral implications to save lives...(if you cannot take this emotional baggage to save lives)...you are in essence responsible for the rape and murder of thousands of lives.

3rd answerer.

If those that get murdered and raped by the murderers are not innocent...

in the scenario we let 1000 murderers go free, 1000 'innocent' people will be killed and raped...

The probability that all of these will be actually murderers and rapists in disguise is rather very low, so therefore, I use the reverse logic on you...

If those 1000 'innocent' people---if 999 of them are all rapists and murderers too, who just happened to get raped and murdererd by those 1000 people. I rather take responsibility and put 1 innocent guy in jail, then let 1 innocent guy get raped and murdererd for no reason but not taking responsibility.

The odds of this happening are rather low...while the odds of your logic are rather strong that the 1000 guys you let go....will do something to at least 10 innocent people...

so the odds are, if I can save 100'ds for putting a couple innocent guys in jail...

I put the guys in jail. Anything less, is reluctance to face responsibility

Answer to Guy who said I rethink about it if it happened to me:

Sure...man, if it happened to me, I would be pretty pissed off...

But you ask me....as an unbiased thinker, if I had to make that decision and take responsibility for the good of my people and populace?

I would take responsibility and save thousands of innocent lives.

You tell me how I could sleep knowing I put an innocent guy in jail...

How do you sleep by letting murderers and rapists out on the street KNOWING that the odds that more than one of them will commit a crime and harm more innocent than you would have put in jail yourself?

Is it not better that you put them in jail yourself....then leave it up to the warped individuals you let free?


I say you rethink about it, friend.

libertarian...

you know the phrase, its better to let 100 guilty go free than put 1 innocent guy in jail right?

Now, we are talking hypothetically here. If you release the 100 murderers, you probably get 75 people dead, thus you sacrificed 75 people for 1, this is incredibly inneficient....

yet the premise for much of "libertarian" thought....

So, libertarian...

you are using my hypothetical example, and saying that the example is flawed because it would be an incredibly inneficient system, yet it is exactly what libertarian thought advocates (let 100 guilty go free instead of 1 innocent punished).....

I agree with you that putting the innocent in jail is wrong. But in the event that you have to choose, and in most cases the probabilities are on the side of the innocent, because as you just stated, it is VERY HARD, for an innocent to go to jail....

THEN most of the guilty should be put behind bars, rather than let free over 1 or 2 innocents...

if the odds turn,

then its a whole different story...

In that case, the system is not a justice system, but an amoral system...and in that case you must rebell against that system.

But to say, that just because you put 1 innocent in jail in order to put a lot of murderers behind bars....that the next day you will have a justice system that jails more innocents than criminals is ridiculous...

you have reach a balance...you cannot go to extremes, which is something you "libertarians," unfortunately and sadly, do very often...

either letting all the murderers go free...or jailing all the innocents..Either of these systems do not work.

And people would never support a system that puts more innocent in jail than guilty in our democracy, we would rebell, just as if bush tried to take over the country tommorrow with the military, we would rebell..

Just because you have even handed justice, and take some responsibility, does not mean you send the message that an innocent life is nothing, it means we take responsibility and make a decision on the best odds...

Those that interpret it differently, are not accepted into the justice system, (because they would be concidered Retarded)..

In any case, people have a sense for "injustice" and I am SURE that they would sense that before it got to the points where the odds were inversed...

Your proposition are ridiculous, but I want to answer it fully to avoid some people to get swayed to your side, which in essence, has no basis in reason or inherent moral justice.

points* =point

Answer 1

How can you be sure that those you say are innocent are ideed what you say they are?

Answer 2

I think I know what you are trying to say. If a person is found guilty and is later established as innocent, should we go after the guilty party? And, why is it that often innocent people are victimized by guilty parties that go free because of technicalities like forgetting to read them the Miranda rights. I understand your point. I am not a part of the legal system, and it get does get me steamed that so many officers let people go when they should jail them. It upsets me that even though I elect officials to office, they don't give into their political promises. We do what we can and we have to let go of the rest because it is out of our control. All we can do is hope and pray that things will go alright.

Answer 3

The stated principal in law is that it is better to let a guilty person go free rather than punish innocent person. Your thoughts on justice would change if you were wrongly convicted even though you think this is for the best and the world would be a better place. Maybe you want to rethink this.

Answer 4

For starters, if you're releasing 1,000 guilties for every innocent that you don't jail, then your justice system is incomprehensibly incompetent. Even a 1:1 ratio is pretty bad.

Furthermore, when an innocent person is jailed for something he didn't do, it's rarely by accident. Usually the cops and/or D.A. know full well they don't have a legitimate case against him, so they doctor evidence and lie. The act of jailing an innocent person is itself an act of evil. If it is allowed to continue, then corruption is given the green light and before you know it you're jailing 1,000 innocents for every guilty who gets off free.

In short, jailing an innocent person isn't just a moral outrage against that person and against justice, but a genuine threat to social order and society every bit as real as the threat of allowing 1,000 guilties to go free.

Answer 5

Where good men do nothing that is where evil triumphs for it more difficult and more of a coup for the wicked when it can stop the hand of righteousness for to influence bad to do worse is not that great of a challenge. When we realize that we are not separate but connected then good men will be compelled to act for when this knowledge is gained it can't so easily be suppressed.

Answer 6

>>>>have the balls to recognize this is not an ideal world, and you do not punish the 1 innocent, and let 1000 murderers go,>>>>

This part of your question is not understandable.

Answer 7

There were many interesting philosophies presented in Minority Report.

I agree that we need to realized that our justice system isn't going to be perfect, and we need to sacrifice some innocent people for the benefit of everyone.

Answer 8

Because Mel gibson hates the jews