Poll: How much is an innocent worth?

[zehydra]

The point of the justice system I believe is to protect the innocent, so condemning even one innocent person in the name of justice for the victim is a failure of the justice system.

The system that the OP described of course is fictional and would be awful were it to exist in a society.

 

[Smokepuddle]

If a rapist is left in the general public of a prison it's quite normal that someone makes them their ***** so you're facing one innocent with the possibility of being raped on a regular basis for ten years... also it's very rare that someone is truly innocent (so it depends on if this "innocent" is actually a good person) and since prison often breed violence it would be a shame to corrupt one of the few good people in the world. If they aren't? Well that's just karma.

 

[KING POJO]

"The innocent only exist until they inevitably become perpatrators.
Guilt and innocence is a matter of timing."
----Judge Rico

Even with his temporary innocence, he should feel proud to serve society and lock away 10 rapists, even if he must face the same charge.
And rapists do continue the crime, very few of them actually see it as rape.

 

[kinggingerman]

I generally prescribe to a utilitarian view. So in this case the 10 rapists represent a greater danger to the public and so should be detained even if this requires the sacrifice of one persons liberty. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

 

[Ledan]

Surely if you charge all of them, the innocent can be found to be innocent?
In any just court the ten will be found guilty and the innocent will be found innocent. If he is found to have collaborated or to have watched the crime and not done something, then he should face justice as well (not the 10 years thing, but some sort of reprimand).

 

[savandicus]

Judging from the inital problem it seems to me that you dont have enough evidence to convict the 10 guilty people based solely on their own and therefore the only way to successfully convict them is to pull some illegal lawyer stunt which gets them all. I would not do this.

Not enough evidence to convict on a person by person basis then they are innocent as they cannot be proven guilty.

 

[Ledan]

I generally prescribe to a utilitarian view. So in this case the 10 rapists represent a greater danger to the public and so should be detained even if this requires the sacrifice of one persons liberty. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Just food for thought: Utilitarianism says that the right action is that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. Therefore, if a these ten rapists rape the same person, bringing greater happiness to themselves, it would be an non-right action for the victim to tell anyone that they had been raped. Since they would be spreading unhappiness.
I'm NOT saying that this is your view, but it is the view of utilitarianism.

 

[ScorpSt]

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.

Clearly none of you knew how Double Jeopardy works. If found not guilty, it's true that he could not be tried for any of the incidences of molestation that he was being tried for, but he could still be tried for future incidences as well as incidences that were not listed in the initial trial. The scenario you're suggesting is along the lines of being unable to prosecute someone for rape because they'd already been found not-guilty of raping the victim in the past.

Furthermore, even if you found him not guilty, that would not exclude the possibility of the prosecution appealing the verdict, especially if they had new evidence that is more concrete than before.

OT: If the scenario you're describing were to happen (and even be possible) I'd say let them all go. Allowing one innocent to suffer in the name of punishing the guilty is as bad as being a criminal yourself.

 

[Gigano]

I generally prescribe to a utilitarian view. So in this case the 10 rapists represent a greater danger to the public and so should be detained even if this requires the sacrifice of one persons liberty. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Ever thought about that perhaps in the even greater perspective, having a state and justice system which is bound to respect individual rights and dignity might be what will ultimately generate the most happiness for the largest amount of people?

There's a reason it was John Stuart Mills who formulated the harm principle, and not Kant. Utilitarianism can encompass, explain, and allow for deontology in parts of its system (a feat not possible the other way around), which is what makes it the superior ethical system.

 

[The Shade]

We will divide the innocent man in two!

Wait, no - solving the wrong problem.

Let them all go, I guess. Then wiretap the crap out of them all to see if you can narrow down the suspects.

 

[Faladorian]

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.

This is not how a court works, and the very idea of it is disgusting to me, everyone has a right to a fair trial, separate from the trials of others, no exceptions.

This. See: Scottsboro Boys

 

[SilentCom]

If there is a situation where one innocent person gets entangled with ten guilty people in court and faces the same punishment, then there is something wrong with the legal system. I don't know what I would do in this kind of circumstance. I could either let them all free then go vigilante on the ten guilty or incarcerate them all and find a way to free the innocent... if I was Batman that is.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

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

My thought exactly.

Playing along, though, trow em all in jail. One innocent does not counter the damage that the 10 will do if let off the hook.

 

[rutger5000]

A similair scenario can give you an extremly easy answer. Imagine a healthy and innocent man X enters a hospital, were several dying innocent man are in desperate need of organs that man X could supply. Would it be justified to slice up man X so that the other innocents can survive?
Of course not. Judgement needs emotion to be just, if only reason was followed then 10 guilty men could be sent to prison at the cost of also taking 1 innocent man. But with just a little emotion you can easily say that it's wrong to judge like that.
Besides in real life it often means that a guilty man walks if an innocent is set to prison. That's why I would never confess a crime I'm not guilty of. No matter what kind of deal they would offer me.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Im pretty sure with modern science and psychology we'll be able to single out the innocent one.

 

[Skratt]

In this scenario you don't know which 10 are guilty, so by definition of the law, there is not one innocent life up there, you have eleven. Set them all free and get better evidence next time.

On a moral note, you cannot condemn the innocent to punish the guilty.

 

[LordOrin]

I'd prescribe rigorous counseling and therapy to all ten. If the psychologist were unable to determine who the innocent one was, at least he or she might get something out of the experience. Throwing them in prison would just defer the problem of dealing with ten potential criminals for a decade.

 

[The Apothecarry]

Those that really are rapists will probably end up back in court in a week for rape. The innocent man is, of course, not a rapist and therefore will not commit rape.