Which is the greater crime?

[Drathnoxis]

To wrongfully convict an innocent person or to allow a guilty one to walk free?

Obviously in a perfect world all crimes would be discovered and punished accordingly to their context and severity, however we do not live in a perfect world yet and so our justice systems will make mistakes. Should they err toward leniency or toward severity?

Is it worse to allow a serial rapist/arsonist/killer go because of a error in procedure or to convict someone who has in truth committed no crime?

 

[Thaluikhain]

If there is a concern that the killer is going to kill a number of people if let go, you could argue the numbers say it's better to lock up the innocent.

However, that's a sweeping generalisation, you really need more specifics.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If there is a concern that the killer is going to kill a number of people if let go, you could argue the numbers say it's better to lock up the innocent.

However, that's a sweeping generalisation, you really need more specifics.

However, any person who has been released from a high profile case is more likely to be under greater surveillance from then on and will possibly have a reduced ability to commit crimes. They may commit more crimes and they may get caught later.

How many innocents does it take before the state's crime is greater than the criminal's? 1% of convictions? More? Innocent people who's lives are turned upside down for years and who will forever have to live with the stigma of being a convict.

 

[Satinavian]

How many innocents does it take before the state's crime is greater than the criminal's? 1% of convictions? More? Innocent people who's lives are turned upside down for years and who will forever have to live with the stigma of being a convict.

Dis you know that stuff like that was what people earnestly discussed for law reforms 3-4 centuries ago and what had a huge impact on and was one of the the main driivers for the development of stochastics ?

But in the end people decided that punishing innocents is always wrong and if you are not sure, you should let the suspect be free, percentages being irrelevant. And that is how todays societies think and it seems to work fine enough.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But in the end people decided that punishing innocents is always wrong and if you are not sure, you should let the suspect be free, percentages being irrelevant. And that is how todays societies think and it seems to work fine enough.

Counter-example: drone strikes. Maybe some or all of the people about to die are civilians, that's often seen as acceptable losses, collateral damage or whatever the current euphemism is. Admittedly, there's no criminal court involved.

 

[Xprimentyl]

There is no greater crime than a system that, by virtue of its self-imposed authority, would rob innocent individuals of their basest liberty. There are countless unpunished criminals walking the streets as we speak, but what's more disturbing is the thought that there are ANY innocent people in prison for the crimes of those criminals. I mean, can you imagine? Sitting in a courtroom and have charges leveled at you that you know you had nothing to do with and you're helpless as the judicial system just steamrolls you into a cell for months, if not years, if not the rest of your life?

 

[happyninja42]

There is no greater crime than a system that, by virtue of its self-imposed authority, would rob innocent individuals of their basest liberty. There are countless unpunished criminals walking the streets as we speak, but what's more disturbing is the thought that there are ANY innocent people in prison for the crimes of those criminals. I mean, can you imagine? Sitting in a courtroom and have charges leveled at you that you know you had nothing to do with and you're helpless as the judicial system just steamrolls you into a cell for months, if not years, if not the rest of your life?

Same for me. Plenty of people do crimes that never get caught, myself included from my youth. But I do think that innocent people being convicted and punished, for crimes they didn't commit, is the worse scenario, in the broadest, most top level classification.

The problem with these type questions, as evidenced by the very next post from the OP, is that invariably, after an answer is given, tons more qualifiers are brought into play. "Ah, but what about if they are a *insert terrible thing*" or whatever.

So without the infinite qualifiers on this kind of moral question, I side with "don't punish the innocent whenever possible", with the caveat of I reserve to change my stance, depending on the crimes in question, and the situation itself.

 

[Dalisclock]

There is no greater crime than a system that, by virtue of its self-imposed authority, would rob innocent individuals of their basest liberty. There are countless unpunished criminals walking the streets as we speak, but what's more disturbing is the thought that there are ANY innocent people in prison for the crimes of those criminals. I mean, can you imagine? Sitting in a courtroom and have charges leveled at you that you know you had nothing to do with and you're helpless as the judicial system just steamrolls you into a cell for months, if not years, if not the rest of your life?

As others have mentioned, even once you serve your sentence, or even if it was overturned, there's a stigma that never goes away, at least in the US. A lot of jobs are hard to get, if not impossible, if you have been convicted of anything, regardless of innocence, guilt, sincere desire to make something better of your life or not. That's not even getting into laws that disproportionately affect the poorer members of society because they're less likely to be able to afford good representation and because of the way they're written(3 strikes laws).

That's why it's exceedingly difficult to go down the utilitarian route on this subject because of problems like this, aside from the normal issues with utilitarianism in general.

 

[Worgen]

Its worse to convict someone who committed no crime since not only have you sent an innocent person to jail but you also let the true perpetrator go free and since the crime is assumed solved, they think they have gotten away with it so they may decide to commit more. Plus if it comes out the person convicted is innocent then you also have a degradation of trust in the judicial system and the police.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Same for me. Plenty of people do crimes that never get caught, myself included from my youth. But I do think that innocent people being convicted and punished, for crimes they didn't commit, is the worse scenario, in the broadest, most top level classification.

The problem with these type questions, as evidenced by the very next post from the OP, is that invariably, after an answer is given, tons more qualifiers are brought into play. "Ah, but what about if they are a *insert terrible thing*" or whatever.

So without the infinite qualifiers on this kind of moral question, I side with "don't punish the innocent whenever possible", with the caveat of I reserve to change my stance, depending on the crimes in question, and the situation itself.

So in other words you reserve the right to flip flop on your principles if the thing they are accused of is really horrible and the media has declared them guilty? I think that's a pretty common stance on the matter, actually.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There's no guarantee a guilty individual will commit a crime again if they're allowed to walk free. It is guaranteed that locking up someone innocent is a crime. So yeah, the latter is worse.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

It's clear: jailing the innocent still means a killer is free while the authorities have no obligation to continue investigation also, making it actually more dangerous to the public.

While releasing a potential killer still keeps the investigation ongoing, protects a potential innocent from false punishment, and authorities can maintain acute observation on the released human while exploring other possible leads...assuming resources allow for it.

 

[happyninja42]

So in other words you reserve the right to flip flop on your principles if the thing they are accused of is really horrible and the media has declared them guilty? I think that's a pretty common stance on the matter, actually.

No I reserve the right to judge each situation on it's own fucking merits. This isn't a fucking black and white issue, otherwise it wouldn't still be a hotly debated topic for years.

 

[Satinavian]

Counter-example: drone strikes. Maybe some or all of the people about to die are civilians, that's often seen as acceptable losses, collateral damage or whatever the current euphemism is. Admittedly, there's no criminal court involved.

Yes.

That is also something civilized countries don't do and even the US wouldn't get away with if it weren't a superpower.

 

[Agema]

Locking up the innocent is worse in principle, because it is the active creation of a new injustice (and by the organisation that is supposed to dispense justice, no less) whereas the failure to convict is merely failure to punish an injustice that's already happened.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Locking up an innocent person is worse. It also implies the real criminal got away with it.

 

[Piscian]

Neither are as damning or deserving of the death penalty as putting pineapple in chicken salad.

 

[immortalfrieza]

The point of locking people up in the first place has never been about justice or even protecting the innocent from crime but to scare everybody else into never even conceiving of the idea of committing a crime in the first place much less actually doing it. The threat that an innocent person could be punished for someone else's crime is as much of a deterrent to the act of crime as the punishment itself.

Only the stupid, the desperate, and/or the insane commit crimes. Punishing the innocent for someone else's crime is of course never desirable, but it's also inevitable so long as we do not live in a perfect society. Debating the idea of "which is worse" is pointless because it will never accomplish anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Only the stupid, the desperate, and/or the insane commit crimes.

Or the foolish, or people who disagree with the law or simply think it doesn't apply to them.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Or the foolish, or people who disagree with the law or simply think it doesn't apply to them.

In other words, the stupid or insane. I'm pretty sure those 3 types can be lumped into one category or the other pretty seamlessly.