this quote
" i would rather let the crime of the guilty go unpunished than condemn the innocent"
i have a hard time grasping what he means. I need an example of this for my paper.
any suggestions ?
thanks :)
2007-12-12 10:10:02 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
What is worse ? Letting somebody who committed a crime (stole for example) go free for the lack of evidence, or putting in jail someone who is innocent based on just accusations without enough evidence ?
Justinian thought that the second is worse.
That describes a legal principle that is now known as Presumption of Innocence - i.e. someone accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.
2007-12-12 10:17:04 · answer #1 · answered by General Cucombre 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he were on a jury trying a person for a crime and they didn't have enough evidence to positively say that the person was guilty, then he would rather let the person go free than convict him and find out later that he was not guilty. He doesn't want to punish a person if they are not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2007-12-12 18:15:42 · answer #2 · answered by Frosty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MY name is justin so idk
2007-12-12 18:14:30 · answer #3 · answered by justin langlois 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋