Poll: An ethical quandary
- Thread starter Alpha Centauri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Congratulations, you're officially a sociopath.Regnes said:
OT: I have to agree with all the other sane people that while I wouldn't want a murderer running around, the definition of justice is that punishment is brought to the guilty and the guilty alone. Hence I'd rather let the guy go than have someone innocent in prison.
Both are the same.Alpha Centauri said:
An innocent in prison means the real criminal is free.
but
Criminal goes free, both innocent and criminal are free.
Since in both scenarios the Criminal is free, then surely the best option is the one that lets the innocent be free as well?
It's the whole Law vs Good. Law is harsh, unempathetic and unjust. Good wouldn't imprison and punish an innocent person under any circumstance. So..yeah. Law vs Good. In DnD terms it's the difference between an LG Paladin of Headcracking and an LG Healer/Cleric whos specialised in nothing but simple weapons for self defence. That and Flame Strike.
i like this regnes person... I must recruit this regnes person...
O.T innocent goes in jail is worse than a guilty one goes free.
O.T innocent goes in jail is worse than a guilty one goes free.
It's not that easy. Especially if it's a choice. For example, you have evidence that person A did something bad, but they threaten that if you bring them to justice, they will incriminate innocent person B.
Seems logical to protect B.
But what if A is some evil monster who will definitely continue to wreak havoc, maybe even continue to kill?
You can revert to a passive point of view and say this is out of your control. You can only be accountable for your own actions and your action now is to protect B from harm.
But most people would be more pro-active about this and say it like Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So if B has to take the bullet to put A behind bars, so be it.
Seems logical to protect B.
But what if A is some evil monster who will definitely continue to wreak havoc, maybe even continue to kill?
You can revert to a passive point of view and say this is out of your control. You can only be accountable for your own actions and your action now is to protect B from harm.
But most people would be more pro-active about this and say it like Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So if B has to take the bullet to put A behind bars, so be it.
Assuming you take one statement over the other, wouldn't saying an innocent person got put in jail also imply that the guilty person didn't?
Unless both a guilty person went down along with the innocent.
Anyway i'd rather see the guilty go free than the innocent go to jail.
Unless both a guilty person went down along with the innocent.
Anyway i'd rather see the guilty go free than the innocent go to jail.
What? The police would be blamed, not the robber. They're not related to each other, and if it was your policy to execute innocents when a crime is committed, you won't drive down crime, more you'll drive yourself out of power.Regnes said:
What a mornic statement to make. Honestly, it reads like you're spouting this crap for attention or something.
I am one of those wacky people who would rather see 100 guilty people set free than one innocent person go to jail.
This question in itself is why the American prison system is horrid.
America says it's better to imprison the innocent than let any guilty go. Unless they have loads of money.
And because of this we have over crowded jails. That costs too much to reeducate and reintegrate them back into society so they just punish them.
And given that environment where they lock you up in and throw the key away for 20 years.. If you weren't a criminal going in, you most definitely are going to be one coming out.
America says it's better to imprison the innocent than let any guilty go. Unless they have loads of money.
And because of this we have over crowded jails. That costs too much to reeducate and reintegrate them back into society so they just punish them.
And given that environment where they lock you up in and throw the key away for 20 years.. If you weren't a criminal going in, you most definitely are going to be one coming out.
So your plan is to kill innocent people because of what guilty people do so that guilty people feel guilty and stop doing what makes them legally guilty of crimes?Regnes said:
For a serial killer/torturer/rapist, then put the innocent in jail rather than let the guilty go free. One innocent in prison is better than 10 tortured or dead. Almost any other crime then guilty go free.
Except the 10 tortured or dead will still happen and the innocent will still be in jail. I get what you're saying that you would rather not risk they could be the guilty party but then it's even worse. The innocent would be condemned to a good portion of their life in prison for such a crime.Chairman Miaow said:
As posted earlier the problem boils down to one strong point. In both situations the guilty party goes free. The difference is the innocent gets unjustly punished in one. Now if you amended the question to ask if it's better a guilty person drags an innocent down to be brought to justice then it might take some more deliberation based on the crime, but as it stands one is just a better choice.
Those witch hunts were cruel but effective. I mean they never once had a witch speak out against them!usmarine4160 said:
Oh, I didn't realise the guilty party always went free. I assumed that it was the amended question. Well, yeah that's a stupid question then, anybody who says the innocent in jail is a complete idiot.Schuldrich said: