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'.

 

[ElPatron]

Given that I don't actually think Justice is important at all

Leave your door unlocked today, I could use some new stuff for my house.

if you robbed a 7-11 because you ran out of money to fuel your addiction to anorexic hermaphrodite porn

Spoiler: my face when

 

[Samantha Burt]

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.

Congratulations, you're officially a sociopath.

OT: I have to agree with all the other sane people that while I wouldn't want a murderer running around, the definition of justice is that punishment is brought to the guilty and the guilty alone. Hence I'd rather let the guy go than have someone innocent in prison.

 

[scw55]

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)

Both are the same.

An innocent in prison means the real criminal is free.

but

Criminal goes free, both innocent and criminal are free.

Since in both scenarios the Criminal is free, then surely the best option is the one that lets the innocent be free as well?

 

[Versuvius]

It's the whole Law vs Good. Law is harsh, unempathetic and unjust. Good wouldn't imprison and punish an innocent person under any circumstance. So..yeah. Law vs Good. In DnD terms it's the difference between an LG Paladin of Headcracking and an LG Healer/Cleric whos specialised in nothing but simple weapons for self defence. That and Flame Strike.

 

[RustlessPotato]

i like this regnes person... I must recruit this regnes person...

O.T innocent goes in jail is worse than a guilty one goes free.

 

[RubyT]

It's not that easy. Especially if it's a choice. For example, you have evidence that person A did something bad, but they threaten that if you bring them to justice, they will incriminate innocent person B.
Seems logical to protect B.

But what if A is some evil monster who will definitely continue to wreak havoc, maybe even continue to kill?

You can revert to a passive point of view and say this is out of your control. You can only be accountable for your own actions and your action now is to protect B from harm.

But most people would be more pro-active about this and say it like Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So if B has to take the bullet to put A behind bars, so be it.