English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In other words, you let the guilty go in order not to punish the innocent unjustly, but in this action, do you not kill the innocents who get killed and raped by the guilty you let go.

2006-08-01 17:42:53 · 12 answers · asked by jack d 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

So, I got a yes....

Now another question...

so if you do endanger MORE innocents in letting ALLL those guilty go, just to not punish some innocents unjustly....

would it NOT make more sense to keep the guilty behind bars, to protect more innocent from getting killed or raped?

In other words....more simply

you have the choice of 50 innocents getting killed or raped, or punish one person unjustly...

you decide...do you decide to kill 50 people gruesomely and with no dignity and raped....over sending 1 person unjustly to jail..? If you do not decide, the 50 people automatically leave the jail....

What do you do? not decide, decide in favor of the innocent in jail, or the 50 gruesomely murdererd and raped?

Sometimes people need to have the REAL issues in their face, in order to face them.

2006-08-01 17:53:26 · update #1

12 answers

It's not an either/or question, really. It's more of a spectrum. Consider:

No matter what you do, there WILL be innocent people convicted in any judicial system. Period. The only way to be absolutely certain nobody innocent is convicted is to convict nobody.

And the same holds for the guilty. You WILL set guilty people free, unless you take the extreme measure of throwing everyone in prison (but that leaves the question of who holds the keys, too!).

So every system has a balance. The only question is where the balance lies. In the American system, the balance lies in the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' area, and perhaps a little beyond given all the other benefits someone prosecuted gets.

Personally, I think the ideal system of punishment would consist enitrely of reform and no punishment whatsoever. If this were the case, it wouldn't harm innocent people at all - they're already reformed, so they don't even have to adjust. And hopefully we can turn the maximum number of guilty people into productive citizens again instead of warehousing and concentrating their villainies. Then we wouldn't have to worry about convicting innocent people, just about letting guilty ones go free.

How can we possibly do this? Beats me. But I figure that at least if you know where you're going, you'll know when you've arrived!

2006-08-01 18:07:54 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 1 1

in an unambiguous situation like that, yes it would be better to send one person unjustly to jail. but in practical terms, situations are never this clear cut, and by doing away with legal protections for criminals, you will end up with a worse society than if you had kept those protections. there will be more innocent people in jail, less respect for the law, etc. Furthermore, if you do make it easier to jail people, then you increase the chances of jailing the wrong people. When a person is convicted of a crime, the case is closed on that crime. If they were innocent, then not only is an innocent person in jail, but a guilty person is loose with no one suspecting.

In totally clear hypothetical examples like this, the choice seems obvious, but rarely is this the case in reality. We don't face the "real issues" as you say, by retreating into highly implausible scenarios, we face them by looking at real world consequences. Yes better to deny one person liberty than 50 life, but practically speaking, imprisoning the wrong person will end up being even worse than having never imprisoned the right person because not only will the criminal be free, but an innocent person will be in jail and the populace will have a false sense of security.

2006-08-01 18:03:14 · answer #2 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0 1

We are supposedly bound by some rules, laws, which says, Let the 100 guilty go by but an innocent must not B punished, whereas in practicality what happens's the guilty are doing what they want & they R free but it's always a innocent who's punished without any guilt or crime, it's noticed. There may B some rare wxceptions too. What V need's to change the law & implement it strictly to stop crimes of any sort. In my opinion, prevention's better than cure.

2006-08-01 18:21:36 · answer #3 · answered by JD 4 · 1 0

Yes, you are right. That is the irony and tragedy of the judicial system. But it's still better than the lack of one... such as countries where people get prosecuted and put to death for nothing other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The thing that seems really horrible.... if you watch "Law & Order" I'm sure you've seen it..... is when the court KNOWS the person is guilty - through absolute proof or admission-- and still has to let them go because the officer screwed up when he arrested them. That's just ridiculous.

2006-08-01 17:50:27 · answer #4 · answered by mia2kl2002 7 · 1 0

Your question is a false dichotomy and non-sequitur. There is no reason that keeping innocent people from being wrongly jailed should lead to letting guilty people go free.

2006-08-01 18:04:29 · answer #5 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 1 0

Who is to say that one innocent if left alone would not save thousands in the future? And so on and so forth...

The best answer is therefore to just make a rule and live with it, because it is a lose lose situation anyway.

2006-08-01 18:08:04 · answer #6 · answered by : ) 6 · 0 0

Your question makes sense to me.

I think that the only purpose of punishment should be to make society better. Society includes those people who are being punished.

I think that people are so vengeful that they don't understand that it doesn't and shouldn't be a terrible thing to punish innocent people on occasion.

2006-08-01 17:54:32 · answer #7 · answered by Michael M 6 · 1 0

Do you talk in circles? LOL, just kidding. Do you realize that in this country it's guilty until proven innocent? Watch some courtTV and see how difficult it is to plead you're case if you're unjustly accoused of a crime.

2006-08-01 17:45:54 · answer #8 · answered by Ashley F 3 · 0 1

Yes.

But if you convict the innocent they end up more than likely getting killed by the guilty in prison.

2006-08-01 20:13:16 · answer #9 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 1 0

What? You make no sense. I think you are worrying too much about this issue and you should rephrase if you want an intelligent answer.

2006-08-01 17:47:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers