Poll: How much is an innocent worth?

[awesomeClaw]

Okay. Here´s the scenario:

There are eleven people. All of these people are being brought into court. They are accused of rape. If charged, they will face 10 years in prison and be marked for the rest of their lives. Ten of these people have commited the act of rape. However, one of them, is 100% innocent.

However, in order for the Ten guilty to be charged, the one innocent would also be charged.
If however, the innocent is not charged, the Ten will get away scott-free.

How much is an innocent worth?

Me? I´d let them all go. I value an innocent person very highly.

EDIT: I´ve just decided that there is a chance they will commit the crime again. If they do, they will be charged as normal. The innocent will have nothing to do with it.

If you see someone saying they won´t commit the crime again, please excuse them.

 

[gibboss28]

...why would finding 10 of them guilty mean that the innocent would be charged too?

 

[Qizx]

Well if they won't repeat the behavior again I don't see anything wrong with letting them go free to save the innocent. I agree that protecting someone who's done no wrong should be the laws first and foremost priority.

 

[Count Igor]

Well hopefully the innocent guy will say "No. Put us all away, they can't get away with it"
And so I know who's innocent!
But then lock them all up, just in case.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I would say charge no one. If the ten will not commit the same crime again (which, you know, is the whole point of prison), I see no reason to convict them and harm the innocent.

 

[Qizx]

...why would finding 10 of them guilty mean that the innocent would be charged too?

It said be charged, this is a hypothetical situation, remember.

 

[Qizx]

Well hopefully the innocent guy will say "No. Put us all away, they can't get away with it"
And so I know who's innocent!
But then lock them all up, just in case.

So would you be completely willing to be locked in prison for 10 years for a crime you didn't commit so that 10 other people can be as well who won't do the same crime again anyways?

 

[TheDist]

Thankfuly this doesn't always go down like that, however I would let 10 free to save one innocent person. However, if it is just laying charges upon them, and not a conviction, thats a little diffrent. Innocent untill proven guilty, as long as the justice system is fair, the investigation also fair and thorough then said innocent should be proven as such.

Though indeed things are never as we want them to be and no system can be perfect. The sad and painful reality is life often just isn't fair.

 

[Kiroy]

Our law system is built to make it difficult to convict people for the reason of keeping innocents out of jail. Charging all of them would seem counter-intuitive.

 

[Count Igor]

Well hopefully the innocent guy will say "No. Put us all away, they can't get away with it"
And so I know who's innocent!
But then lock them all up, just in case.

So would you be completely willing to be locked in prison for 10 years for a crime you didn't commit so that 10 other people can be as well who won't do the same crime again anyways?

PROBABLY won't.
And no, I wouldn't. I'm saying that I can be hopeful.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

As heartless as it is to say, if they repeated the behavior, then we could charge them. However, proving innocence is much more important than proving guilt.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

This is the dilemma that jurors face. I recall being on jury duty (but being dismissed ) but during the deliberations we learned the scenario of the case: child molestation.

Many jurors wanted to find the defendant guilty even before all the evidence came in. Not through bias towards suspects, or faith in officials, but through the simple existence of Double Jeoproady.

If we found him not guilty he could've walked away and done it again if he was in fact guilty and never be charged again. But if we found him guilty, new evidence and testimonies could always acquit him regardless of our verdict.

Many people think that a criminal free on the streets is too much of a risk.

 

[GeneralChaos]

Well, let's approach this logically. Assuming the following:
1.All ten of the others are guilty
2.Being raped is just as bad as facing prison for rape
3.There is a chance p that each of the ten rapists will commit the crime again

From here, it all depends on the perceived value of p. If you choose to incarcerate them all, you have caused harm to one innocent life. If you choose to let them all go, you have caused harm to 10*p innocent lives. So if p>.1, charge them all otherwise let them go. I don't know enough about the statistics of repeat offenders to make a choice yet, but I would be sure to research that if I were on the jury.

Note: adjust the above if 2 is untrue. If being raped is twice as bad, then p only has to be >.05, if being wrongfully imprisoned is twice as bad, p needs to be >.2, etc.

 

[Boba Frag]

I really can't see why the innocent person can't be proven as such.
There are criminal justice systems and trials for a reason.

Sorry, it's just too much of a complex process and the issues involved are too charged to be simplified in this manner.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Limit the sentence, I guess. This actually is a good topic.

However, the innocence of one person is not worth the freedom of ten accused criminals.

 

[ConnorCool]

I'm sure most reasonable people in the innocents position would let themselves be charged, and then behave in prison. People saying that they will catch them the next time they commit the crime freaks me out, why would you let somebody do it again?

 

[ThisIsSnake]

1 innocent you say? I'll trade you 50 unclean for them, now I can open the gates of Korash!

 

[JezebelinHell]

How can you value one innocent person so highly and not think of the initial victim?
Being charged is not being convicted.
Prison is not a means to deter crime, it is a means of punishment for crime. Everyone swears they won't do it again when they are caught, I highly doubt they would be telling the truth.