Poll: Is it better to let a criminal go free, or to let an innocent get convicted?

[Jodah]

If you lock up an innocent person that means the real criminal got away with it and is still out on the street. To me there are two difference between that and letting a criminal go. First is that the investigation is over, you are no longer looking for the real person. If you let the criminal go you can still watch him to see if he does something else illegal. The second, and most important, issue is that someone truly innocent is suffering for no reason.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

well, my reasoning is, let out a murderer, and he can go kill more innocent people.

put in an innocent, and you lose one innocent.

letting out a criminal is just more risky.

your reasoning is flawed, because in both situations the murderer is free to kill someone, which makes the putting an innocent in jail worse as the wrong person is suffering for a crime he did not commit while the one that did commit the crime gets off scott free, and there is the fact that you wasted the courts time and taxpayers money to convict an innocent person...i could go on

letting the criminal go free due to a lack of evidence is the lesser of two evils

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

 

[cheese_wizington]

If the innocent gets convicted that the criminal is still free.

That's some flawed logic.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Innocent until proven guilty. It is what modern society is based on.

I'd rather think that someone near me might have criminal intentions than that the government or ruling body that is supposed to protect and help me might end up jailing me because they didn't put enough time into finding out who really did it. Or whatever stupid reason innocent people get jailed for.

---

Oh, just wanted to add, I agree with the person I quoted.

 

[moretimethansense]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

OT: I believe that it's better that more criminals are let go than catching them at the cost of non-criminals, my reasoning is thus - Innocents should (if possible) never come to unnessecery harm, thus letting one that has done so walk free is better that creating another victim.

 

[PunkyMcGee]

Innocent until proven guilty. It is what modern society is based on.

I'd rather think that someone near me might have criminal intentions than that the government or ruling body that is supposed to protect and help me might end up jailing me because they didn't put enough time into finding out who really did it. Or whatever stupid reason innocent people get jailed for.

---

Oh, just wanted to add, I agree with the person I quoted.

Before the edit I read it 4 or 5 times, I couldn't detect your motive for quoting me. I couldn't tell if you we're trying to poke a hole in my post or not.

 

[spartan231490]

Criminal go free. If he never violates the law again, then the justice system has done it's job, and if he does he's more likely to get convicted the second time around.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

The whole is made up of single events. Convicting an innocent means you're numerically worse off than letting a criminal go free; a whole of more rightful convictions plus more wrongful convictions means you're basically no better off, and likely worse. A criminal walking means the risk of more crime plus the sunk cost of trial, while an innocent convicted means a greater sunk cost of trial, the loss of productivity from the punished innocent, and the risk of more crime from the legitimate criminal who's now likely more under the radar (barring victimless crimes, naturally). A "big picture" view just increases that arithmetically.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

Well then, will the increase in convictions of criminals due to it being easier to convict outweight the increase in criminls getting off because someone else is doing the time for them? I don't have a fucking clue, anyone else know? Probably not.

I go for letting the guilty free, for the point that both result in a free guilty person but only one results in a jailed innocent and the above reasoning.

Also this:

The whole is made up of single events. Convicting an innocent means you're numerically worse off than letting a criminal go free; a whole of more rightful convictions plus more wrongful convictions means you're basically no better off, and likely worse. A criminal walking means the risk of more crime plus the sunk cost of trial, while an innocent convicted means a greater sunk cost of trial, the loss of productivity from the punished innocent, and the risk of more crime from the legitimate criminal who's now likely more under the radar (barring victimless crimes, naturally). A "big picture" view just increases that arithmetically.

Not to mention the old adage: The first thing to do when falsley accused of a crime is go and commit one...ok, that's probably something I made up, but if I was falsley convicted of a crime I can guarantee there'd be a couple more murders once I got out.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Innocent until proven guilty. It is what modern society is based on.

I'd rather think that someone near me might have criminal intentions than that the government or ruling body that is supposed to protect and help me might end up jailing me because they didn't put enough time into finding out who really did it. Or whatever stupid reason innocent people get jailed for.

---

Oh, just wanted to add, I agree with the person I quoted.

Before the edit I read it 4 or 5 times, I couldn't detect your motive for quoting me. I couldn't tell if you we're trying to poke a hole in my post or not.

Lol, it just occurred to me I hadn't really explained why I had quoted then I'm like OH SNAP! that could be taken the wrong way, and it'd be confusing.

I quoted you because I totally agreed with you and wanted to elaborate on it

 

[archvile93]

It's better to let a criminal go free. If I fail to convict a guilty party, then he goes free. If I convict an innocent man, then not only have a ruined his life, but the real guilty party walks.

 

[moretimethansense]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

The whole is made up of single events. Convicting an innocent means you're numerically worse off than letting a criminal go free; a whole of more rightful convictions plus more wrongful convictions means you're basically no better off, and likely worse. A criminal walking means the risk of more crime plus the sunk cost of trial, while an innocent convicted means a greater sunk cost of trial, the loss of productivity from the punished innocent, and the risk of more crime from the legitimate criminal who's now likely more under the radar (barring victimless crimes, naturally). A "big picture" view just increases that arithmetically.

Not nessecerily, let me give you a hypotheitiocal:

300 crimees are comitted, all by different people (bear with me) now let's say that all of them are caught along with a few innocents, 100 of the real criminals are convicted but none of the inocents are that leaves 200 criminals walking free.

Now for a harsher system

300 crimes are commited all by different people, all of them are caught along with a fair few innocents, the more strict laws lead to 250 of the criminals being convicted but 50 innocents are convicted along with them, that leaves 50 criminals on the street rather that the 200 of the previous example, the only drawback is ruining the lives of 50 people in exchange.

In the big picture it does make a difference, the only thing is are those extra caught criminals worth the innocent victims?
I'd say no, but I can ssee the other sides point of view.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

The whole is made up of single events. Convicting an innocent means you're numerically worse off than letting a criminal go free; a whole of more rightful convictions plus more wrongful convictions means you're basically no better off, and likely worse. A criminal walking means the risk of more crime plus the sunk cost of trial, while an innocent convicted means a greater sunk cost of trial, the loss of productivity from the punished innocent, and the risk of more crime from the legitimate criminal who's now likely more under the radar (barring victimless crimes, naturally). A "big picture" view just increases that arithmetically.

Not nessecerily, let me give you a hypotheitiocal:

300 crimees are comitted, all by different people (bear with me) now let's say that all of them are caught along with a few innocents, 100 of the real criminals are convicted but none of the inocents are that leaves 200 criminals walking free.

Now for a harsher system

300 crimes are commited all by different people, all of them are caught along with a fair few innocents, the more strict laws lead to 250 of the criminals being convicted but 50 innocents are convicted along with them, that leaves 50 criminals on the street rather that the 200 of the previous example, the only drawback is ruining the lives of 50 people in exchange.

In the big picture it does make a difference, the only thing is are those extra caught criminals worth the innocent victims?
I'd say no, but I can ssee the other sides point of view.

You can't really see the big picture from that, though, since the numbers are completely arbitrary.

 

[moretimethansense]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

The whole is made up of single events. Convicting an innocent means you're numerically worse off than letting a criminal go free; a whole of more rightful convictions plus more wrongful convictions means you're basically no better off, and likely worse. A criminal walking means the risk of more crime plus the sunk cost of trial, while an innocent convicted means a greater sunk cost of trial, the loss of productivity from the punished innocent, and the risk of more crime from the legitimate criminal who's now likely more under the radar (barring victimless crimes, naturally). A "big picture" view just increases that arithmetically.

Not nessecerily, let me give you a hypotheitiocal:

300 crimees are comitted, all by different people (bear with me) now let's say that all of them are caught along with a few innocents, 100 of the real criminals are convicted but none of the inocents are that leaves 200 criminals walking free.

Now for a harsher system

300 crimes are commited all by different people, all of them are caught along with a fair few innocents, the more strict laws lead to 250 of the criminals being convicted but 50 innocents are convicted along with them, that leaves 50 criminals on the street rather that the 200 of the previous example, the only drawback is ruining the lives of 50 people in exchange.

In the big picture it does make a difference, the only thing is are those extra caught criminals worth the innocent victims?
I'd say no, but I can ssee the other sides point of view.

You can't really see the big picture from that, though, since the numbers are completely arbitrary.

Like I said a hypothetical, of course the numbers are arbitrary, but for the love of god man! look at the point, not the words!

Lax system - less innocents wrongly convicted but less criminals convicted overall

Harsh system - more innocents wrongly convicted but more criminals convicted overall.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm glad at least a few people touched upon the correct reasoning.

If the innocent man is convicted, the criminal automatically goes free.

The reasoning behind this arguement (the subject not yours) is should the courts convict more freely meaning fewer criminals get off on technicalities but a number of innocents are imprisoned as a side effect, or is it better to have it so that innocents are rarley convicted but as a side effect more legitimate criminals get off.

The question doesn't refer to a single event but the system as a whole.

The whole is made up of single events. Convicting an innocent means you're numerically worse off than letting a criminal go free; a whole of more rightful convictions plus more wrongful convictions means you're basically no better off, and likely worse. A criminal walking means the risk of more crime plus the sunk cost of trial, while an innocent convicted means a greater sunk cost of trial, the loss of productivity from the punished innocent, and the risk of more crime from the legitimate criminal who's now likely more under the radar (barring victimless crimes, naturally). A "big picture" view just increases that arithmetically.

Not nessecerily, let me give you a hypotheitiocal:

300 crimees are comitted, all by different people (bear with me) now let's say that all of them are caught along with a few innocents, 100 of the real criminals are convicted but none of the inocents are that leaves 200 criminals walking free.

Now for a harsher system

300 crimes are commited all by different people, all of them are caught along with a fair few innocents, the more strict laws lead to 250 of the criminals being convicted but 50 innocents are convicted along with them, that leaves 50 criminals on the street rather that the 200 of the previous example, the only drawback is ruining the lives of 50 people in exchange.

In the big picture it does make a difference, the only thing is are those extra caught criminals worth the innocent victims?
I'd say no, but I can ssee the other sides point of view.

You can't really see the big picture from that, though, since the numbers are completely arbitrary.

Like I said a hypothetical, of course the numbers are arbitrary, but for the love of god man! look at the point, not the words!

Lax system - less innocents wrongly convicted but less criminals convicted overall

Harsh system - more innocents wrongly convicted but more criminals convicted overall.

Yes, I know, but an innocent wrongly convicted by itself is inherently worse than a criminal going free.

The only possible way around that in favor of a harsh system is in the entirely unrelated coincidence of the police getting better at their jobs. Without either a totally separate debate or outside empirical data, it's a worthless hypothetical to consider.

 

[moretimethansense]

Or your stricter laws allow them to railroad 298 innocent people, and get 2 criminals.

Of course that's certainly a possibility in the real world but this is a question of morality, not necessarily practicality, the question kind of assumes that more criminals go in with the innocents, otherwise it's just an unspeakably shitty judicial system.

Yes, I know, but an innocent wrongly convicted by itself is inherently worse than a criminal going free.

Son, I am dissapoint.
I'm not convinced that you even read my post, one of my major points was that I AM NOT in favour of this system and never would be, I was argueing against the use of a single person as an arguement, that would be stacking the data and that shit does not fly with me.

The only possible way around that in favor of a harsh system is in the entirely unrelated coincidence of the police getting better at their jobs.

You do realise that even as they are, there are far more actual criminals arrested than there are innocents right?
Police don't (usually) just arrest random folks and hope for a conviction, they tend to aquirre evidence first.

Without either a totally separate debate or outside empirical data, it's a worthless hypothetical to consider.

ALL hypotheticals are worthless to considder, unless you are discussing philosophy, which we kind of are.

 

[crudus]

I may not understand the question. I vote that it is better to convict an innocent person than let a criminal go free. However people are innocent until proven guilty. I am not understanding why both of these questions are being asked in the same breath.