|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on May 26, 2010 18:08:20 GMT -5
It depends on too many things (as mentioned in various comments above). Also, if the innocent person is aware of the dilemma and is willing to make the sacrifice so that 10 "guilty" guys (whatever that means) are not set free, then I suppose it's OK.
|
|
Helmet
Star
Man Up By Womaning Down
Posts: 567
|
Post by Helmet on May 26, 2010 18:15:51 GMT -5
I would say that the guilty people who get off free would either: 1) Do nothing, and (somewhat) respect community 2) Do crimes and go back to jail.
So yeah, let the innocent free.
|
|
The Doctor
Moon
I wear my sunglasses at night
Posts: 147
|
Post by The Doctor on May 26, 2010 18:42:36 GMT -5
Basically you guys think "Guilty untill proven innocent" is the way to go if the suspected crime is Murder/Rape.
I got a perfect example for you, Terrorism. Right now around the world suspects of terrorism are guilty untill they are proven guilt-free. If you are suspected of terrorism you can be detained for months for suspicion of terrorism. Terrorism might be a mass murder, aswell as it might be destroying of public property.
Anyhow, just thought Id give a real life example of this hypothetical situation.
I am all for Innocent untill proven guilty, just to answer the question I would let 100.000 guilty people go free for the sake of not incarcenate an innocent. Basic Human Rights...
|
|
|
Post by thequirkyduo on May 26, 2010 23:50:04 GMT -5
I think it should depend on the crime that was committed. In my opinion, you shouldn't release 10 mass murderers onto the streets in order to protect one innocent individual, based on the safety of the public alone. By keeping one innocent human being out of jail you could be putting the lives of dozens at risk, and that is not a good trade-off in my book. But if the person was guilty of shoplifting or stealing a car - then yes. I think it would be better to free the innocent than to convict the guilty...
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 27, 2010 11:50:25 GMT -5
I know it's not directly answering the question, but it would seriously suck so bad being convicted for something you didn't do. The frustration knowing you are right but not being able to proof anything would be awful!
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 27, 2010 13:50:17 GMT -5
Considering I have been that one innocent person I have to say this debate is pretty screwed up either way you look at it.
If an innocent person is in jail that means the real guilty person is still free in the world.
Innocent people get arrested because they ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time making them take the blame for a crime someone else committed.
Either way you look at it there are guilty people running around free so the real question is what's worse, having no one in jail or having the wrong person in jail? I'd rather have the jail cells empty than to have innocent people sitting in them.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on May 31, 2010 21:51:45 GMT -5
This question has been asked many times and many people have had different answers. I want to see what everyone here thinks. Is it better to let 10 guilty people go free rather than convict one innocent person? Discuss. Those 10 guilty people could kill more than 1 innocent person.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on Jun 1, 2010 20:20:35 GMT -5
I believe that the needs/rights of many should supersede the needs/rights of few. As far as a literal answer goes, that's pretty subjective. I mean, are we talking about murderers or petty thieves?
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 1, 2010 22:28:46 GMT -5
I believe that the needs/rights of many should supersede the needs/rights of few. As far as a literal answer goes, that's pretty subjective. I mean, are we talking about murderers or petty thieves? You do realize that this is what fascism was based on?
|
|
tulae
Meteorite
Posts: 30
|
Post by tulae on Jun 2, 2010 0:28:18 GMT -5
here's one thing i know, the whole prison system is total SHIRT. the goal is to seperate the "bad" people from the "good" ones, like those terms really mean something, and then torture the people who get convicted. torture, seriously.
(people are people and putting them in a stone and steal box and denying their existence by labeling them subhuman certainly doesn't keep more "people to be put in the box" from being created as a result of our culture)
someone please tell me what to call this seperationist sort of idea where people try to force their ideas of how people ought to be on people, cuz it's not just in prison, it's everywhere, and it sucks.
here's something else i know. if our ideas about how people ought to be were correct, then there would be absolutely no real problems with anybody in our society. it's that simple.
what we actually do is submit to the culturally preconcieved ideas about how things are supposed to work, and lie when they don't work that way, because we don't want to cause an upset, look like an ass, or hurt anyone's feelings. (this is why zen masters are (thank goodness) some of the most blunt and rude people you will meet. safe to say you learn the most from them)
what we actually do is try to find the people who we can deny of their peoplehood, so as to protect ourselves. it's not working, we need to stop.
i'm not saying we should give up law and conviction, and that people should be able to do whatever they want (just yet) , i'm saying that what will solve deviance is a cultural shift, but the answers to the problems behind the deviances are so glaringly obvious that they stare us in the face all day long, we just get really good at not seeing anything but what we think we ought to see.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on Jun 4, 2010 21:28:36 GMT -5
You do realize that this is what fascism was based on? You do realize there's a difference between fascism and socialism?
|
|