How many guilty men would you let go free to keep one innocent man out of prison?

[Fallguy]

Yeah, I kinda had a hard time understanding the question.

The way I read it: "How many convicted, guilty imprisoned men would you free to allow one convicted, not guilty imprisoned man to go free?"

None.

However the way I think the question was meant more as "You have X men in front of you, and one of them is not guilty, but you have no way to prove it reliably as to which one is not guilty." In that instance, I would let them all go. Innocent until proven guilty. If you can't prove which one is innocent and which one is guilty, none of them should be imprisoned.

I think the question was a little to ambiguously worded.

I don't have extreme faith in our judicial system. To many lawyers are out for themselves, to many officials are out for themselves. Statistics are skewed for published numbers to show who is safe, who isn't and who does more. However, I prefer our judicial system over those in other countries. As someone mentioned earlier, it is not perfect, but it does make it a lot more even. While I don't think it is awesome to dump a million dollars to prove your innocence, the possibility exists to be able to do so.

Yeah...I tried to word it like the quote I've heard, but change it a bit to make it more clear...but in the end may have made it worse. I did try to clear it up in post 4. I even used the "x number" phrase...

Agree with your last paragraph...

[BigK]

After reading the thread, it seems there as many ways to defend your vote as there are loop-holes in our justice system.

Most of us get angry when we hear about some scumbag getting away with a crime because of a technicality. However, that technicality that we hate was built into the system to hopefully keep innocents out of jail. The abundance of these loop-holes speaks to the effort put forth to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted.

Does it still fail on occasion? Sure it does, but what the OP seems to be really asking is 'what margin of error is acceptable'? Most here seem to me to be saying they are not willing to accept anything short of perfection. I think this kind of absolutist mentality would have lead our country to a much more certain destruction than the imperfections in our current system.

Afterall, no perfect system could EVER exist, so the only alternative to ensure NO innocent is EVER convicted is to have no system at all.

BTW...thanks Fallguy, this is a very interesting topic.

Edited November 17, 2011 by BigK

[Smith]

After reading the thread, it seems there as many ways to defend your vote as there are loop-holes in our justice system.

Most of us get angry when we hear about some scumbag getting away with a crime because of a technicality. However, that technicality that we hate was built into the system to hopefully keep innocents out of jail. The abundance of these loop-holes speaks to the effort put forth to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted.

Does it still fail on occasion? Sure it does, but what the OP seems to be really asking is 'what margin of error is acceptable'? Most here seem to me to be saying they are not willing to accept anything short of perfection. I think this kind of absolutist mentality would have lead our country to a much more certain destruction than the imperfections in our current system.

Afterall, no perfect system could EVER exist, so the only alternative to ensure NO innocent is EVER convicted is to have no system at all.

BTW...thanks Fallguy, this is a very interesting topic.

Good summation BigK.

[Fallguy]

After reading the thread, it seems there as many ways to defend your vote as there are loop-holes in our justice system.

Most of us get angry when we hear about some scumbag getting away with a crime because of a technicality. However, that technicality that we hate was built into the system to hopefully keep innocents out of jail. The abundance of these loop-holes speaks to the effort put forth to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted.

Does it still fail on occasion? Sure it does, but what the OP seems to be really asking is 'what margin of error is acceptable'? Most here seem to me to be saying they are not willing to accept anything short of perfection. I think this kind of absolutist mentality would have lead our country to a much more certain destruction than the imperfections in our current system.

Afterall, no perfect system could EVER exist, so the only alternative to ensure NO innocent is EVER convicted is to have no system at all.

BTW...thanks Fallguy, this is a very interesting topic.

Not too far off....

First I was just interested to see how many thought it was ok for some guilty to go free so that innocents didn't go to jail period...then if they felt like that "margin of error" is a good way to put it on the number.

Something I never really put out there is....this doesn't mean the guilty will go free forever necessarily. There is more than a decent chance that a criminal will re-offend and perhaps when caught that time there will be no doubt of guilt. An innocent is not going to re-offend as he never did in the first place.

So if you're unsure...isn't it better to let someone go so as not to risk an innocent going to jail?

Of course...I guess that is what we are supposed to have now...

..and you're welcome. As you know I enjoy a good debate/discussion...

[Grunt67]

This scenario is similar to the old question.. "Do you still beat your wife?" No good answer.

[Guest lostpass]

You and me both. I feel the same way about that. Trouble is civilization marches on, demographics

shift, prices change and land use changes. Some neighborhoods can't help what happens by the

next batch that moves into it. l am the one who normally lives in the past. Glad to have you as a

neighbor:D

People have always rented. It's when the character of people moving into neighborhoods can't

maintain a level of decency previously had there because of their socioeconomic background.

You can see it in every neighborhood in the country.

I wish I had sold mine but tax considerations at the time and the profit creep was looking until

a few years ago.

I actually grew up in a neighborhood that was and still is very stable. I wish I bought that house

from my mother, years ago.

You're right, I'm stuck in the past. But, dammit, it wasn't because they were renters it was who they rented to.

Actually, now that I think about it, it wasn't really about whom they rented to it was more about what the renters did. Which was nothing. They let those houses fall into disrepair because the renters didn't complain (or if they did the owners didn't listen). A perfectly good neighborhood reduced to trash for no good reason.

[BigK]

...

So if you're unsure...isn't it better to let someone go so as not to risk an innocent going to jail?

Of course...I guess that is what we are supposed to have now...

I'd lose a lot of faith in my fellow man if I couldn't safely assume that we all agree that we should never lock anyone up unless we're pretty darn sure they're guilty.

I give the crafters of our legal system the benefit of the doubt in that I assume they had good intentions. I'd like to think they weighed the consequences to society of making the burden of proof too strict and compared that to the injustice of locking up innocents.

I do, however, wish I had a magical statistic machine that could spit out real numbers for anything I asked it. I'd love to know how many guilty actually go free for each rule of law that protects the innocent and how many innocent have been punished for each rule that allowed us to convict the guilty.

I can't honestly say exactly what margin of error I'd be willing to accept, but it would be closer to my chances of getting struck by lightning than my chance of getting a cold.

Edited November 19, 2011 by BigK

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think a lot of this variance in opinion is also

due to people nowadays being tried in the

court of public opinion, which can easily be

wrong. The principle is wrong, to begin with.

Those entrusted in making the decision of

innocence and guilt have much more strict

rules to follow. And we all know what we hear

in the media has an edge, one way or another.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk