How many guilty men would you let go free to keep one innocent man out of prison?

[Fallguy]

Based on a few post in several different threads I got curious about this among the members on here.

I had always heard, "It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man." But doing an internet search shows quotes with numbers as low as 1 guilty man up-to 1000. Some have even said it is better for more innocents to suffer than to let one guilty man go free.

So that is why I am posing this question to you.

This not an open poll. No one can see your vote.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Fallguy

[Guest pfries]

I would like to say none. But then again I would like to live in a better world. We have an appeal process in place to help those who have been wrongfully incarcerated. It is probably not as simple as it should be, I have no experience with it to gauge or grade it. I also realize that system can be and has been abused. The judiciary branch probably needs to strengthen the process. By that I mean to stream line it and give concise requirements as to who and how. We endeavor to through our system to not allow this to happen thus the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” but a judge and jury are human and will be bias to some degree regardless. If they are guilty they need to serve their time if they are innocent they need an appropriate avenue to prove it if they have been wrongfully convicted. So I again say none.

[sigmtnman]

In this day and age $$$=freedom and the Justice System it ain't. It's a legal system.

[Fallguy]

To clarify...by "go free" I don't necessarily mean those that are already incarcerated (although not excluding them either)

I mean more if LEOs rounded up X number of people and in that X number there was 1 innocent person and the rest guilty, but it was not known which one is innocent, what is the highest X number (if any) you would let go so that the innocent didn't go to jail/prison?

[Guest bkelm18]

I would rather 1000 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail. Our system is far from perfect, but no innocent person should be punished because of it.

[E4 No More]

I can't say as I like the way the question is phrased. If you know they are guilty then why would you be letting them go for the sake of the innocent?

In my opinion, (and I don't care who sees it), no innocent person should be imprisoned and no guilty person should go free. Is that realistic? No. In today's American society where there is rampant judicial/prosecutorial misconduct I would say that way too many innocent people are being convicted, (or plead-out). I think that there should be criminal offenses attached to actions that constitute judge/prosecutor/police misconduct resulting in a conviction for even a simple traffic ticket. Today it seems that they feel justified in sinking to the criminal standard to win a case. I knew a former LEO who stated to me once that he had no problem with lying on the witness stand when he was an officer because the suspect was lying as well. Aren't judges, prosecutors, and LEOs supposed to be held to a higher standard than the criminal?

[E4 No More]

To clarify...by "go free" I don't necessarily mean those that are already incarcerated (although not excluding them either)

I mean more if LEOs rounded up X number of people and in that X number there was 1 innocent person and the rest guilty, but it was not known which one is innocent, what is the highest X number (if any) you would let go so that the innocent didn't go to jail/prison?

It doesn't matter how many guilty there are. If they can't prove their case then all should go free.

[Fallguy]

No, it's not a realistic scenario. But the way the question is worded is exactly what leads to the "moral dilemma".

You have to knowingly let guilty men go free so as to not take in one innocent person. Because you don't which ones are which. Are you willing to do that and if so, how many?

I can't say as I like the way the question is phrased. If you know they are guilty then why would you be letting them go for the sake of the innocent?

In my opinion, (and I don't care who sees it), no innocent person should be imprisoned and no guilty person should go free. Is that realistic? No. In today's American society where there is rampant judicial/prosecutorial misconduct I would say that way too many innocent people are being convicted, (or plead-out). I think that there should be criminal offenses attached to actions that constitute judge/prosecutor/police misconduct resulting in a conviction for even a simple traffic ticket. Today it seems that they feel justified in sinking to the criminal standard to win a case. I knew a former LEO who stated to me once that he had no problem with lying on the witness stand when he was an officer because the suspect was lying as well. Aren't judges, prosecutors, and LEOs supposed to be held to a higher standard than the criminal?

[Guest bkelm18]

I can't say as I like the way the question is phrased. If you know they are guilty then why would you be letting them go for the sake of the innocent?

I agree the whole premise of the scenario is kinda wacky, never fully understood it. But, as I said, an innocent person should not be punished because of a faulty system. Everyone deserves a fair and equal trial. I guess what it really boils down to, is if you were presented with one guilty person, and one innocent person, would you rather both be acquitted at trial, or both be found guilty? I certainly don't want a "guilty" person to walk free, but more so I don't want an innocent person to languish in prison. Yes there are appeals processes but we all know those aren't a guarantee of anything.

[E4 No More]

In this day and age $$$=freedom and the Justice System it ain't. It's a legal system.

That would be remedied by the jurisdiction having to pay the expenses of the defense if the suspect is acquitted.

[Smith]

Problem is that the statement is one of sentiment and not reality.

[sigmtnman]

That would be remedied by the jurisdiction having to pay the expenses of the defense if the suspect is acquitted.

I was thinking the inverse. The folks with money should get the same representation as those without money.

[Fallguy]

Problem is that the statement is one of sentiment and not reality.

Exactly....

[Smith]

If you try to make eveything perfect it won't happen. Innocents will always be there. Kinda like the poor. I have no problem with that. Those are just realities but it doesn't mean you don't work to right those wrongs. Better for one innocent man in prisonfor for abusing a child then several pedophiles running the street. I try to put myself in that situation and I have to apply it the same. If the righteous won't bear the burden of imperfection you really think the unrighteous will work towards perfection? I think the greater good outweights the reality of the greater evil.

[Guest pfries]

To clarify...by "go free" I don't necessarily mean those that are already incarcerated (although not excluding them either)

I mean more if LEOs rounded up X number of people and in that X number there was 1 innocent person and the rest guilty, but it was not known which one is innocent, what is the highest X number (if any) you would let go so that the innocent didn't go to jail/prison?

That is for the courts to decide,

as far as who is guilty burden of proof lies on the state, burden of innocence lies on the individual and their lawyer.

[E4 No More]

If you try to make eveything perfect it won't happen. Innocents will always be there. Kinda like the poor. I have no problem with that. Those are just realities but it doesn't mean you don't work to right those wrongs. Better for one innocent man in prisonfor for abusing a child then several pedophiles running the street. I try to put myself in that situation and I have to apply it the same. If the righteous won't bear the burden of imperfection you really think the unrighteous will work towards perfection? I think the greater good outweights the reality of the greater evil.

Would you have these sentiments if you were the innocent in jail?

[E4 No More]

That is for the courts to decide,

as far as who is guilty burden of proof lies on the state, burden of innocence lies on the individual and their lawyer.

I believe it's "Innocent until proven guilty" so why do they have to prove innocence?

[Guest pfries]

I believe it's "Innocent until proven guilty" so why do they have to prove innocence?

That just seems to be as much the norm as the inverse, seems more like it starts at a stale mate in the court room and if you do not come prepared to prove your innocence you have lost before you started.

[Smith]

Would you have these sentiments if you were the innocent in jail?

Yes, as I stated in the post. If the principal changes becasue of the outcome then it is not a principal.

[E4 No More]

That just seems to be as much the norm as the inverse, seems more like it starts at a stale mate in the court room and if you do not come prepared to prove your innocence you have lost before you started.

Most certainly it is the norm in smaller courts throughout the nation. Watching corrupt judges, prosecutors, and police is why I left my police department in 1993. Call me an idealist, but I couldn't be so much as even tacitly involved in that system any longer.

[LagerHead]

No, it's not a realistic scenario. But the way the question is worded is exactly what leads to the "moral dilemma".

You have to knowingly let guilty men go free so as to not take in one innocent person. Because you don't which ones are which. Are you willing to do that and if so, how many?

If you don't know which are which you are morally obligated to let them all go free. In addition you are legally obligated to let them all go free. I can't put a number on it but I definitely would err on the side of freedom.

[Guest pfries]

Yes, as I stated in the post. If the principal changes becasue of the outcome then it is not a principal.

+1

I agree there is no way to make the system perfect,

I have not been falsely convicted but I was pulled over and detained, vehicle searched as they had reasonable suspicion. Felony style stop, was I happy about it, no. After all was said and done and I found out both myself and my vehicle matched a description I was more than understanding and appreciative that they were doing as much as they were.

[Guest bkelm18]

If you try to make eveything perfect it won't happen. Innocents will always be there. Kinda like the poor. I have no problem with that. Those are just realities but it doesn't mean you don't work to right those wrongs. Better for one innocent man in prisonfor for abusing a child then several pedophiles running the street. I try to put myself in that situation and I have to apply it the same. If the righteous won't bear the burden of imperfection you really think the unrighteous will work towards perfection? I think the greater good outweights the reality of the greater evil.

You don't punish the innocent for a faulty system. I would rather let several pedophiles run the streets rather than one person spend their life in prison because they were falsely accused. Like it or not, THAT is the burden of a free society. It is on us to fix the system. Simply saying it's ok for innocents to be caged like animals just so that a few bad guys get caught is simply unacceptable. The greater good is such that no innocent person shall be punished for crimes they did not commit regardless of if the guilty go to jail or not.

Edited to add: I'm not saying I want pedophiles to roam free. I was just using the example given earlier.

Edited November 16, 2011 by bkelm18

[sigmtnman]

bkelm18 is right on this one.

Innocent until proven guilty... Guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt and all that jazz.

The perpetrators who are able to sneak by will meet a tall tree and a short rope soon enough.

Edited November 16, 2011 by sigmtnman

[E4 No More]

Yes, as I stated in the post. If the principal changes becasue of the outcome then it is not a principal.

Really? How about if you were an innocent on death row...would you be willing to die for this principle?