Poll: An ethical quandary

[Alpha Centauri]

Which is more just?

An innocent person put in jail

or

A guilty person goes free

I've been mulling over this for a month or so and I can't decide which is more just (or justifiable)

 

[lacktheknack]

I would personally vote to execute the innocent person, it will send a real message to the criminals. They can't go around committing crimes, if they won't stop, well then we're going to have to just keep on killing people until the message gets across to them.

Why'd you have to drag capital punishment into it? That wasn't in the question! You've probably gone and ruined a perfectly good thread without proper use of Daystar!

OT: I like the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. I can attest that being accused of committing a crime that you actually is a really nasty thing.

 

[lacktheknack]

Gawrshdrattit, I'm falling for trolls more and more easily. I should sleep more.

 

[Nouw]

Innocence? Guilt?
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
[sub]I choose the latter.[/sub]

 

[Kae]

Given that I don't actually think Justice is important at all, I'll go for the innocent person.

 

[Freechoice]

Innocence? Guilt?
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
[sub]I choose the latter.[/sub]

Fuck, you ninja'd me. Everyone expects the Imperial Inquisition.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

When a guilty person goes free a majority of the time they'll commit another crime giving them another chance to get caught and go to prison.

If an innocent person is tried an convicted, they're basically screwed.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

An innocent person going to jail is worse. Because their life is fucked now, even if they dont go to jail an accusation can be bad enough to ruin their reputation.

But a guilty person? They are likely to commit another crime and get caught eventually. They will get whats coming to them.

If it was something theyd likely never do again, like say murdering their wife in a fit of passion and they get away.... Well Its horrible, but society isnt in danger from them if they plan to never do that crime again.

 

[DoPo]

I remember a similar thread from was it a month back? Only the question was altered and put as a hypothetical situation. I seem to rcall there was a heated discussion. Almost like there were flames.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I think it would be worse for an innocent person to be punished. So a guilty person going free to me seems more just.

 

[MetalMagpie]

The burden of proof should always lie with the accuser, not the accused. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. So it is always better to release a guilty person than imprison an innocent one.

 

[Vivi22]

I've ruined a thread with revolutionary new concepts?

Since when is the death penalty a revolutionary new concept, let alone an effective one?

As to the OP, letting a guilty person go free is always preferable to punishing the innocent. Plus, criminals tend to give you more chances to put them away.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

It's not a question of which is more just, as both those options are unjust. However, I would say that in a justice system with capital punishment it is better to let the odd criminal go free rather than murder blameless people, and in a system without it is perhaps better to incarcerate the occasional innocent than to loose dangerous predators on the populace.

Of course, both of these solutions are, shall we say, less than optimal. Running Man is clearly the way forward for all right-minded psychopaths civilians.

 

[Jadak]

A guilty person going free...

With a freed guilty person, the outcome is a variable, maybe they'll do something bad again, maybe they won't, and no matter what happens it will have no impact on what has already been done.

Putting an innocent person in jail however, is a defined outcome that is bad.


It's not my personal preference, but without any context and looking at purely which is more justified, a 'maybe bad' is better than an 'always bad'.