Which action is more heinous?

Question

imprisoning an innocent person or freeing a guilty one? And why?

Answer 1

Imprisoning an innocent. It is part of the belief that founded the US. It doesn't always work out that way though.

Answer 2

I think that depends entirely on the crimes. Imprisoning an innocent person will often be worse in my mind, but an exception would be if the criminal was guilty of a small-scale non-violent crime and was the sort of person who would contribute positively the community, perhaps including being a good parent to kids who would otherwise be in foster care.

Answer 3

Imprisoning the innocent. Rather let 10 guilty ones go than imprison one innocent.
Imagine yourself in the position of an innocent railroaded into prison. How would YOU feel?
To the answer above, imprisoning an innocent is no solution, as the guilty one is now free for good without even a suspicion against him, able to repeat the crime.

Answer 4

Imprisoning an innocent person.....worse yet, executing one.

Answer 5

Imprisoning an innocent person is ABSOLUTELY more heinous.

As for reasoning...think about it.

A law-abiding, good citizen gets his rights taken away....Rights which are supposed to be thoroughly protected by our constitution.

Or, a bad person, doesn't get punished.....yet!

Now which is it?

Answer 6

I could make a solid arguement for either one of those. The question comes down to one of scope and scale. If society can absorb the actions of the freed guilty person, then freeing the guilty is better. If society cannot absorb the actions of the criminal, then it is better to imprision the innocent. Everything is a cost-benefit analysis.