If an innocent person is convicted and sent to jail, he may lose years of his life before he is found innocent of the charges, IF he is ever found innocent.
However, if someone guilty of murder is found innocent, he is walking the streets and there is a high probability of him killing another innocent person.
So either way, there is a risk of an innocent person in danger. On one hand, you have an innocent person in jail; on the other hand, an innocent person may be murdered.
Which do you think is worse?
2007-01-19 09:06:57 · 13 answers · asked by I STILL hate hippies 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The innocent person in jail is definently is worse. This is a choice between who is responsible for the crime. The criminal or the government. The criminal can be caught, but the innocent man will never get back the time he lost, not to mention the damage to his name. This is why I am a strong opponent against the death penalty. Innocent people have been given the death sentence before and it is better to hold criminals for life then risk killing an innocent person.
2007-01-19 09:13:15 · answer #1 · answered by dscottc1989 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The bible says that God hates both the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty. If forced to choose, however, it seems worse to have the innocent person in jail than the guilty person free. This is consonant with both scripture (judgment reserved until you die, not meted out immediately upon the transgression) and reason (the guilty person may be caught later and then deprived of his liberty, but who will give back the time lost by the wrongly convicted innocent man?).
I also question the validity of the inference that a murderer will murder again just because s/he is not in prison. Mass murderers are pretty rare, and I suspect the statistics would show that most murders are committed under circumstances that cut against repeating the offense (revenge, jealousy, infidelity, and the like). So if the "murderer" is Charles Manson or Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahlmer, I might think differently. If it's OJ, Robert Blake, or Dr. Richard Kimball, I'd rather run the risk of him killing "again" than imprisoning someone innocent (like, maybe, YOU).
2007-01-19 09:27:11 · answer #2 · answered by Captain Obvious! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A guilty person on the streets. The system isn't perfect, it makes mistakes. Sometimes innocent people get convicted of crimes, sometimes guilty people get let go. However, there is greater risk involved with allowing criminals back into society. A murderer will murder again, a rapist will rape again... Especially with modern technology in forensics it appears that less innocent people are going to jail and innocent people in jail are being exonerated. I'd sleep easier at night knowing we always got the right person in prison, but it's never going to be true, however, I sleep just fine knowing we get it right most of the time
2007-01-19 09:16:49 · answer #3 · answered by Modus Operandi 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
100 guilty people walking the streets is better than one innocent person in jail. I work in a jail, so I see how an innocent person could be broken down if locked up. If you disagree, then you have never been exposed to jail in anyway.
Put yourself in the shoes of the innocent person wrongfully accused and ask yourself the question.
2007-01-19 09:14:59 · answer #4 · answered by The Maestro 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Its a shame when the justice system does not work, and some are in prison and might be innocent and many criminals are set free for lack of evidence or just having a good lawyer who found some loopholes, either way its a doubled edged sword, you can't always win. I also have to agree with "Uncle Osbert" in everything she said, plus she is soooo cute!!
2007-01-19 09:19:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My suggestion for you wolud be for you to survey both groups. see which they believe. If you think that a guilty person on the streets is worse, maybe you would like to see the majority of people rounded up and jailed so that more guilty people are locked up.
maybe we can go around holding people for years without charges, without benefit of counsel etc. Hmmmmmmm, sounds familiar!
2007-01-19 09:17:22 · answer #6 · answered by sparbles 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel the cruelty of stealing another's life, whether by murdering that person or jailing them unjustly are equal, generally.
The reason it is worse to jail an innocent person in your scenario is that the other choice is a future potential.
2007-01-19 09:12:36 · answer #7 · answered by justagirl33552 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i believe the innocent person in jail is the worse solution. there is always the risk of losing criminals, and there are always more criminals to replace the ones we catch... but if we are all behind a system of justice, we are all at risk for being caught in the error. we have every reason to try and make it the most perfect one we can. what is your recourse if you are innocent and in prison? you cannot prove a negative.
2007-01-19 09:12:28 · answer #8 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Considering I would be that innocent person convicted of something I didn't do - that would be worse. Then again, no other innocent people would be killed if a bad guy DID get convicted. That's a tough one. That's like asking if you want to be killed by a knife or gun...hummm...let me see...I'll get back with you on that...NOT!! NEITHER ONE!!
2007-01-19 09:19:11 · answer #9 · answered by curiousgeorgette 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A reality (the jailed innocent) vs. a hypothetical (crime MIGHT occur)? I'll choose the very real injustice.
2007-01-19 09:18:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋