I would say jailing someone innocent. There is a chance that the guilty person has changed their life, repented, etc. There are numerous situations where you can be justified in freeing a person who commited a crime, but I can't think of one for jailing someone who is truly innocent.
2007-02-15 19:56:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by So_many_questions 3
·
13⤊
3⤋
Jailing an innocent person is worse in my view. Our entire justice system is based on the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' and the fact that that proof has to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt', so if a jury is unsure then they should always acquit. It is of course a terrible thing for a guilty person to escape punishment, but to take away the liberty of someone innocent is much worse. There is always the hope that you might be able to convict the guilty person on another crime if they re-offend, but if you take away years, months, or even just days, of an innocent person's life, you can never give that back.
I haven't yet watched 'The Verdict', but it clearly provides food for thought and raises interesting questions, so I think I will give it a look.
Good question by the way.
2007-02-15 22:13:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by peggy*moo 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think personally it is worse to jail someone who is innocent of a crime than to not prosecute someone who is guilty. This is why the law must be careful to stay on the side of innocent until proven guilty.
You only have to look at cases such as the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and other cases (eg in America where the death sentence has been carried out and subsequently the convicted person has been posthumously found not guilty) to remind us that although the legal system is far from perfect, it is tremendously important not to infringe the human rights of the individual under question until they are proven guilty or not.
2007-02-15 21:30:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by hevs 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Prosecution is not the problem, it is if an innocent person is found guilty.
If a guilty person is set free, this person will be known and their future activities monitored and later prosecution may result.
BUT if an innocent person is jailed, the public still tend to think that there may be "something in it" and in most public eyes they will be looked on as guilty by association. THIS IS ETHICALLY AND MORALLY WRONG.
How many times have there been demonstrations when a person is arrested and public almost hold a "lynching party" only for the police to release the person and charge someone else for the crime? The public have no moral justification by "finding guilty" before a "fair trial".
2007-02-15 21:24:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Robert S 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think both are the same, there's no way either could be for the better.
Freeing a guilty person, there is a higher possibility of that individual reoccurring there crime, than actually changing for the best. If it's a case of recurrence; how can that be good for society?
Prosecuting an innocent person, we should practise the term innocent until proven guilty more. Put yourself in an innocent person shoes when charged for something you haven't done. There and then your entire life changed, and it's only for the worst.
2007-02-15 21:05:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by fancyface 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The biggest crime is certainly prosecuting an innocent person. I've been in prison and i've seen innocent people who's lives have been wrecked by that of a jury finding them guilty. Although on the other hand if you are guilty and the crime is bad enough then prison has to be the outcome.
2007-02-16 00:07:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
both are just as bad, however to free someone who has commited murder is a bigger crime than the murder itself.
many guilty people go free and it would be better if the punishment met the crime... for example in some countries if you are cought steeling they would cut off your hand.
so why not kill people who murder, as they clearly aren't bothered about spending 'life' in jail. which lets face it doesnt do what it says on the tin....
the use of a jury is so that they get it right and dont put innocent people away, however if there is any doubt in the jury then they go free. dont know if this is the right thing to do but it does save the innocent, and sometimes the guilty.
Maybe its just the price we have to pay to get a justice system.
2007-02-15 22:09:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by jojo 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jailing someone innocent is a bigger crime than freeing the guilty.
We have laws in the hope to protect the innocent in the first place, then what is justice if you mistreat the very person you're suppose to protect.
In freeing the guilty, he either can repent (which is the good part) or do more damage (as most evil folks do)....but they will always have their payback time, one way or the other.
But in the prosecuted innocent, the time alone he had serve in prison cannot be replaced.
2007-02-15 20:45:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by psalm 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither is a crime.
To "prosecute" an innocent person happens all the time. To "convict" an innocent person is hopefully rare, but it happens and it is deplorable. But man is fallible and mistakes happen. You do all you can to avoid the conviction of the innocent, but regrettably it cannot be completely avoided. (This, incidentally, is the clinching argument against capital punishment. If you imprison somebody wrongly found guilty of a crime and you eventually you find out the truth then you can release them. You can't bring back the dead!).
The converse of convicting an innocent person is not convicting a guilty one. Again it happens and is regrettable. But in the English system (and many other in civilised countries) there is a PRESUMPTION of innocence. Anyone on trial is presumed innocent until proved guilty. It is the prosecution's task to establish that proof "beyond reasonable doubt". If they fail to do this then the accused is cleared. So mistakes can happen.
My own view is that the wrongful conviction of the innocent is more deplorable than the wrongful acquittal of the guilty. But both are to be regretted, of course.
2007-02-15 20:32:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I did not see the tv program that you did, but because it is an ethics question of interest to me, I will try to answer it philosophically.
"Harming the innocent does not, nor should it ever, be "morally justified.' If you accept this maxim and find it morally preferable to the maxin "Harming innocents is morally justified in the course of trying to punish the guilty" , then not punishing a guilty person is morally preferable, morally better, does more good than punishing an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. To err in this way when there is a reasonable doubt about who committed the crime is the sign of a civilized, morally mature society. One reason for supporting the fist maxim and not the second, are the logical negative consequences of the second. If you choose to follow the second maxim you would also justify wars that kill and injure the innocent non-participants in order to kill the enemy or, given the present conflicts in the Mideast--anyone designated as terrorists. I find the support the second maxim gives to conducting the kind of wars and militarism I just described immoral and hence I prefer and argue on behalf of the first maxim. Killing, harming innocents on utilitarian grounds arguing that it is a necessary consequence of punishing the guilty and doing some good is, in my view, less good , less moral or ethical than the moral good that comes from erring in the direction of not harming the innocent when there is a clear reasonable doubt.
I don't buy into the crime or terror prevention/premption argument because morally it leads to greater harm and greater draconian evil measures by those in authority. The recent weakening of human rights, the increased severity of punishment for minor nonviolent offenses, and the passage of legislationlike the Patriot Acts I & II which weakens or denies citizens their constitutional protection of the innocent's inalienable civil rights by an overzealous or undemocratic law enforcement of the Executive Branch, the use of detainment without due legal process and the inexecusable use of torture are all examples of the draconian measures I am thinking of.
TWH02162007-2
2007-02-16 05:38:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
My 'gut feeling' is that jailing an innocent person is worse. Just imagine what that would feel like if you were in that situation.
However what if the guilty person that is released then goes on to do something terrible to some other innocent person which could have been prevented. If I were the juror that let that person go I would feel terrible about that.
I think it's a difficult balance but 'innocent until proven guilty' is really the only fair way to do things.
2007-02-16 03:12:43
·
answer #11
·
answered by Ellie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋