Where the guilty are always punished but some innocents are convicted too?
Or, where the innocent are never found guilty but the guilty are sometime acquitted?
2007-03-16 11:46:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I prefer the second system, as I find the idea of innocent people being punished totally repugnant. It is very hard for them to put their lives together again after suffering the penalty for a crime they never committed.
With the second system, there is a chance that the guilty person who has been acquitted will be convicted next time round. If there is no next time round -- i.e. if he ceases to offend -- then perhaps he can be seen as rehabilitated, which would have been one of the aims of punishing him anyway.
2007-03-16 20:24:03 · answer #1 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess I would lean toward the latter. But really it would look like this:
The general public would have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be convicted. First offenders should definately be treated this way. Even second offenders. However, once a pattern develops, and more than one conviction beyond a reasonable doubt is recorded, then the person should be put into a seperate legal system, in which the requirement is not "beyond reasonable doubt," but rather "clear and convincing evidence" or even "preponderance of the evidence," both of which fall below the high bar of "beyond reasonable doubt." This would give us the opportunity to punish problem citizens at a lower cost and quicker. Studies have shown that quicker implementation of punishments and rewards results in more effective learning of behavior. So, in teaching crimminals not to commit crimes, it is important to punish them quickly, and not wait months before sentencing even begins.
Those requiring less evidence for conviction can improve their status by good behavior in society. After many years of no crimminal acts, they should once again have the benefit of being convicted only after reasonable doubt has not been found. Also, a crimminal who is in the second system for theft, should still be convicted only after reasonable doubt has not been found if he is being charged with a crime much more serious than theft.
So, in the end, I initially support a system where the innocent are found guilty but the guilty are sometimes aquitted. However, when the guilty have been caught a few times, then I would turn it around and put them in a system where the guilty are always punished but sometimes the innocent are too--so long as everybody eventually has the chance to turn their life back around.
2007-03-16 12:06:43 · answer #2 · answered by t78t78 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We live in a world that is somewhere in the middle.
The truly innocent are usually acquitted, but sometimes they are convicted. The guilty are usually convicted, but if you can afford it, you will walk away.
Now to your question, i would say the second type. No one innocent should be found guilty, even if it means someone guilty can get away with a crime.
Nice question, it really gets you thinking.
2007-03-16 12:08:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're convicted in the first place, I'm sure theres a good enough reason to keep you until you're found innocent or guilty. It's not necessarily punishment, but the law kinda makes it you're guilty until proven innocent as it is already.
2007-03-16 12:05:42 · answer #4 · answered by Peach 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where the innocent are never found guilty, but the guilty are sometimes acquitted. Good question.
2007-03-16 12:00:54 · answer #5 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a tough call. Both have serious problems.
I guess it comes down to which happens more often, and the types of mistakes that are made. If all the murders and rapists are convicted, but lots of guilty jaywalkers are set free, that's going to be different than lots of murders and rapists set free.
If I had to choose -- innocent never found guilty, and the guilty sometimes getting away with it. Causes less collateral damage to the integrity of the judicial system.
2007-03-16 11:57:06 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Better to let a few guilty free than to convict any innocent..
2007-03-16 11:54:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is hard to answer...but I'd take the innocent people are never found guilty.
2007-03-16 11:52:29 · answer #8 · answered by japarino 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
free society . deemed free until proven quilty by a court of peers ,and not just a judge
2007-03-16 11:51:05 · answer #9 · answered by josh s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably the second one but that is because I am a bit crooked myself.
2007-03-16 11:50:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋