Poll: Is it better to let a criminal go free, or to let an innocent get convicted?
- Thread starter BreakfastMan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Our society finds the imprisonment of an innocent much more severe, but when you think of it logically it becomes a tossup.
If you imprison one innocent person, then you lose 1 innocent person.
If you let a murdered lose, he might kills dozens of innocent people.
If you imprison one innocent person, then you lose 1 innocent person.
If you let a murdered lose, he might kills dozens of innocent people.
It's been said, everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. I've read a few stories recently that have me believe it doesn't always work that way though.
I think those stories are pretty horrible. Whether they're true or not, no innocent person's life should be ruined due to courts not being strict enough on evidence.
One story I read had some guy being locked away because some crazy little girl claimed he'd raped her, just so she could get attention. He got like 10 years in prison and lost everything, and then a few years after the sentence ended she admitted she made the whole thing up.
And another one I read had some guy sleep with someone who turned out to be underage, the girl had a fake id and everything. Once the parents found out though they went insane and started saying he raped her and purposefully tried to do as much damage to his life as possible, even though if the fake id came up in court he should have got off lightly.
And another one I read had some guy sleep with someone who turned out to be underage, the girl had a fake id and everything. Once the parents found out though they went insane and started saying he raped her and purposefully tried to do as much damage to his life as possible, even though if the fake id came up in court he should have got off lightly.
I think those stories are pretty horrible. Whether they're true or not, no innocent person's life should be ruined due to courts not being strict enough on evidence.
If you imprison an innocent, that also implies that you close the case, meaning that the actual criminal goes free. This results in a wrongful conviction, and whatever the criminal does next.
If you let a criminal go free, nobody gets convicted, you stay on the case, and maybe have a chance for a full conviction before the criminal pulls the next move. If he does at all.
Ergo, the second option is the better one.
Questions, class?
If you let a criminal go free, nobody gets convicted, you stay on the case, and maybe have a chance for a full conviction before the criminal pulls the next move. If he does at all.
Ergo, the second option is the better one.
Questions, class?
So what a lot of people are saying is that it's better to risk the murderer/rapist go free, then have an innocent man sit in prison? I heartily disagree with that, sorry. I'd rather risk his/her freedom then risk lives.
Those kind of stories scare the living shit out of me. They remind me of a story from down here in Florida, about a man who dragged a little girl who was STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY HIGHWAY out of the highway, and the parents went out of their way to try and convict the guy.Dexiro said:
Thankfully, he got no jail time. However, he was branded as a friggin sex offender, and now has to go through everything that comes with that.
Seriously, fuck the legal system sometimes.
But OT, yeah, I'm gonna join the crowd and say that's it's better to let a criminal go free than convict an innocent person.
You have to realize something; if a person is innocent and admits that he/she didn't do the crime he/she was convicted[footnote] I am referring to the word "Convict" as defined by "to blame someone for a crime".[/footnote], then there's most likely going to be some court case/investigation of if that person really did do the crime. Most of civilized real life isn't as simple as whether or not you do one thing or another. Now, if the choice was to throw an innocent in jail or let a criminal roam free, then I would probably choose the "Depends on The Situation" option.Bocaj2000 said:
If he is guilty and go free, the police have done a lousy job, and it is there the focus shold be.
Do they need better equipment, more manpower or better training ?
Right now we have the opposite here in Sweden,the judges reacently answerd a poll what they do if the evidence isnt enough to make a strong case, 20% said they convict anyway but with a lesser sentence.
Reasently a convicted murderer made proof of his innosence by making a 150000$ investigation and the only "proof" they had was his handprint on the crimescene.
Not "bloody" handprint, just a random handprint, well if he had been on that place some time in the past, he must have been the murderer right ?
How many similar cases do we have of wrongfully convicted without the budget to do their own investigation ?
How many is there in the US ?
Do they need better equipment, more manpower or better training ?
Right now we have the opposite here in Sweden,the judges reacently answerd a poll what they do if the evidence isnt enough to make a strong case, 20% said they convict anyway but with a lesser sentence.
Reasently a convicted murderer made proof of his innosence by making a 150000$ investigation and the only "proof" they had was his handprint on the crimescene.
Not "bloody" handprint, just a random handprint, well if he had been on that place some time in the past, he must have been the murderer right ?
How many similar cases do we have of wrongfully convicted without the budget to do their own investigation ?
How many is there in the US ?
Broadly, burden of proof is on the prosecution, and protecting the innocent takes priority. As a principle, you have to err on the side of innocents to protect the innocent accused. Realistically, over-zealous prosecution is a serious problem, thanks to too aggressive prosecution, under-appreciated defenders, a culture of conviction over truth in Law Enforcement, and the fact that Juries are composed of the kind of people who screw up your order at Taco Bell, and are more likely to believe a coerced confession, inaccurate eye witness testimony, or impassioned gut feelings over hard evidence. If your going to worry, worry about false convictions. However, philosophically, if there is a 50/50 chance of an individual being guilty, and imprisoning an innocent will on average cause 20 units of suffering, while imprisoning a guilty party will prevent an average of 40 units of suffering, then you should imprison. However, this sort of Math is very theoretical and unlikely to be a real scenario, so in general, side with innocence.
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - this is the foundation of the modern justice system, and if you take that message to heart, you would let criminals go free rather than run the risk of jailing the innocent - because once you do jail the innocent, are you any better than criminals?
Plenty of people are wrongfully convicted. Police and Prosecutors are trained to believe that they are infallible, and that they should just "trust" their hunches. Or at least, that's how they used to train them.
There's this book called "Mistakes were made (but not by me)" which deals with Cognitive Dissonance. It examined a few cases in which the Police and Prosecution were CLEARLY wrong but needlessly persisted in trying to convict someone because they had the inability to admit they had got it wrong. For example - a man was accused of murdering a woman, but he was in jail, and they had the records to prove it, when the murder took place.
Or what about a police training manual which stated that in interrogations, if the person being interrogated didn't look the interrogator in the eye, that was a sign of nervousness, which implied guilt, but that if the person DID look the interrogator in the eye, it was because he was trying to cover up his nervousness, and therefore, that implied guilt.
I am generally in favour of the Police and I do think that the system we have now is probably the best that anyone has come up with. But wrongful convictions do happen, and they happen because the Police and the Prosecution care more about winning cases than real justice.
Plenty of people are wrongfully convicted. Police and Prosecutors are trained to believe that they are infallible, and that they should just "trust" their hunches. Or at least, that's how they used to train them.
There's this book called "Mistakes were made (but not by me)" which deals with Cognitive Dissonance. It examined a few cases in which the Police and Prosecution were CLEARLY wrong but needlessly persisted in trying to convict someone because they had the inability to admit they had got it wrong. For example - a man was accused of murdering a woman, but he was in jail, and they had the records to prove it, when the murder took place.
Or what about a police training manual which stated that in interrogations, if the person being interrogated didn't look the interrogator in the eye, that was a sign of nervousness, which implied guilt, but that if the person DID look the interrogator in the eye, it was because he was trying to cover up his nervousness, and therefore, that implied guilt.
I am generally in favour of the Police and I do think that the system we have now is probably the best that anyone has come up with. But wrongful convictions do happen, and they happen because the Police and the Prosecution care more about winning cases than real justice.
let a criminal go free
besides, when you think about it... if your convicting an innocent person, that means the person who really committed the crime has gone free. the convicting an innocent vote is just the same as the other vote, but with added injustice.
besides, when you think about it... if your convicting an innocent person, that means the person who really committed the crime has gone free. the convicting an innocent vote is just the same as the other vote, but with added injustice.
I would sooner see a society that catches all of its criminals than one that lets them walk among innocents. It has nothing to do with burden of proof and more to do with level of required proof. I think the standard of "reasonable doubt" could do with some tightening.
As for letting the crook go free when you lock up the innocent, to quote Kramer from Seinfeld:
"I'm free! I'm free! 'Cause the murderer struck again!"
As for letting the crook go free when you lock up the innocent, to quote Kramer from Seinfeld:
"I'm free! I'm free! 'Cause the murderer struck again!"
Innocent until proven guilty, if still... the question asked is rather silly... beacuse in both the cases someone is convicted.
Say, let the criminal go free, and maybe a scapegoat takes the blame... or if we are lucky the case is put on ice.
Let an innocent get convicted and hey... murder still free.
How about the law getting shit together and convicting the guilty man of a crime?
Say, let the criminal go free, and maybe a scapegoat takes the blame... or if we are lucky the case is put on ice.
Let an innocent get convicted and hey... murder still free.
How about the law getting shit together and convicting the guilty man of a crime?
I love the logic people imply that its better to put an innocent in jail rather than let a criminal go...because then we get criminals off the street...
but if you put someone who is innocent (of that crime at least) the actual criminal is still loose on the streets, you fucking idiots.
YOU PROBABLY PUT THE WRONG PERSON IN JAIL!
Good job breaking it hero.
but if you put someone who is innocent (of that crime at least) the actual criminal is still loose on the streets, you fucking idiots.
YOU PROBABLY PUT THE WRONG PERSON IN JAIL!
Good job breaking it hero.