The people who voted NW would probably change their mind if they were the innocent person going to jail.
Nah, I'd just hire Casey Anthony's lawyer. I would be out of there faster than you could say "not guilty".
The people who voted YYA would probably change their mind if they were the guilty person's next victim.
It's too much of a controversy to bring scenarios into it. It's like that movie where you can press the button and win a million dollars but someone else in the world that you don't know will die, then eventually you die from someone else pushing the button. I don't know exactly how to explain that analogy... but it made sense to me...
Well, obviously. Our bias would set in, skewing our objectivity.
Its actually perfectly sound reasoning to 'put yourself in their shoes' as it were. Thats the whole point of the criminal law system: it is not meant to be based on objective tests. Its subjective- if you want to call that bias fine. But if thats what you call it then 'bias' is always to the defendent in all cases. Becuase its what s/he subjectively thought that counts.
Objectivity in general whether you apply it to a post like above or specific cases; is always a bad idea. so yea..i would change my mind if i were the innocent person in jai. everyone would, what other people think doesnt matter. So yea; i would rather let 10 guilty men go free. Hell i would rather let 100 guilty men go free.
Agh. long reply. Too. Many. Words.
No, that's the exact opposite of what the criminal justice system is. It's supposed to be completely unbiased, reaching a verdict based on amount of evidence and the crime, not personal opinions on the person or their situation.
It's a question of whether you want one innocent person to suffer in jail, or ten innocent people being killed by the people let out of jail.
Yes but who is to say they are all murderers? The original post says "10 guilty men go free". That really could mean anything. Never assume anything.
So you're just willing to take the chance that they are harmless and hope for the best?
"It could really mean anything"---so wouldnt you want to be on the safe side and keep them jailed?
And who's to say that they're all harmless? I'd rather not take the chance of getting killed then hope that the people you are letting go arent maniacal killers.
(Sorry, I couldnt figure out the best way to word this, so I put several attempts)
I respect your opinion. I have always learned to never assume anything. I am a person who would rather have 10 guilty men set free than one innocent man taken into custody. But this post is only general. If it were me I would have a full investigation into which guilty men are set free. They would have to be men that have served their term honorably, regret what they did (what ever that may be), probably one time offenders, rehabilitated, honorably accepted their punishment, remorseful, optimistic for their futures, sorrowful,and have had jail time "change them" for the better. That is what I would do. That is the chance I will take.
i'd gladly serve a couple years to see a serial killer jailed.
You'll be charged for their crime. You really think serial killers serve two years?
You might see it differently too if one of the guilty people being set free killed your mother or was Osama Bin Laden or someone.
I really don't think either are better or worse than the other.
If you look at the news, there are already millions of criminals, and whether or not their verdict is found guilty or not, millions of people are still harmed every day regardless. So many criminals are never caught either, and that's really sad, but in America, putting an innocent man in jail shows absolutely no justice. Read my above comment. What if you were the innocent man?
So you're basically saying that since crime already happens, it's pointless to have criminals in jail?
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying crime is going to continue, no matter what. Putting 10 criminals in jail isn't going to make world peace unfortunately.
(actbadlookgood):No, but it'll help.
It would help very little. I know little things will add up, but when you look at the big picture, there are still millions of criminals. And I'm sure it's so great for people who had been affected by this criminal to see him put in jail, but it still won't make world peace.
fact: because you cannot stop all crime by stopping ten people.
fact: this means that you should not even try.
fact: that would cause the crime rate to rise even further.
fact:millions further would suffer.
fact:at least a thousand or so could suffer at their own homes while their families get killed by one of millions of criminals.
Um no you can't, but I never said anything about not trying. Of course I want to try to stop crime, I want peace in this world so badly. People will suffer if an innocent person goes to jail; our judicial system will suffer. There are millions of criminals whether or not 10 are free? My opinion still stands and you don't know those facts because A. this is a hypothetical situation that probably won't occur, and B. not all criminals are murderers, you do realize that right? And I'd like to know how I'm gay for stating my opinion.
Red alert! Logical fallacy! Abort, abort!
Okay. People just look at ten guilty men on the street or one innocent man in jail, but that's not the entirety of what this philosophy means. Number one: either way, guilty men are going free. The innocent man is going to jail instead of the actual guilty person. Number two: it isn't just about who you're letting go, it's about what society you would prefer. Would you prefer a society that puts people in jail without factual or true evidence, and where planting evidence is easier? Or would you prefer a society that cares so much about putting the right guy in jail, it won't even jail is supposed guilty person if there isn't enough proof? I don't think possible "safety" is worth an easily corruptible justice system that relies on faulty evidence.
Which is better?
Eye witness says he did it, the guy goes to jail regardless of whether or not he did it.
Eye witness says he did it, but because eye witnesses aren't completely reliable, and there isn't any other substantial evidence, the guy goes free.
I'm pretty sure the guilty men are in jail for a reason. We should just leave them in there.
As for the innocent man... good luck?
(Chauncy Pickles): I'm not saying we should take guilty people out of jail? This is a hypothetical situation. I'm pretty sure no one would have to make a decision like that, but if so, I would rather have 10 guilty people free than one innocent man in jail. If and only if I was faced with that decision, which I won't be.
in america, people cannot be convicted for the same crime twice. meaning you would make ten criminals get away scott free just to keep a man from going to jail for a few years
Yep. Like I've said quite a few times. It's not right either way. But an innocent man going to jail isn't fair.
If you start thinking like " oh, a few innocent lives taken will be worth it in the long run" you're thinking just like every other person who is considered bad today. America is supposed to value the individuals opinions over the masses, so if ten people had to be released in order to save one mans life, would it be worth it? Hell yes it would. Besides, just because they said the people would be releases doesn't mean that the police can't keep a watch on them. Herp derp :3
I could use the exact same argument in a reversal scenario.
A 1 to 10 ratio is huge when looked at in this context. That's like saying 100 convicted men go free for every 10 saved innocents. Granted, these 100 aren't all likely to be convicted for really awful things. But what if just a fourth are guilty of murder or rape? That's still 25 murders/rapists being unleashed on society, and chances are they aren't all going to have reformed their ways.
Then you figure -- these 25 guilty men had to rape or murder someone. Couldn't I argue that /you aren't valuing the American individual? Them going free would be an insult on the person they murdered or raped and would greatly upset the family.
And then you figure they could murder/rape someone else, another individual. By arguing what you did, are you not valuing the numerous individuals that could be hurt by these men?
Think about it, even if the innocent man isn't incarcerated for life, when he gets out it'll still be on his record which will make it even harder to get hired in this already suffering economy.
So really, the rest of his life is screwed.
But when they do convict an innocent man and later find out he wasn't guilty, he gets paid buttloads of money. (At least in Texas.)
He also takes buttloads in jail.
... or depending on your perspective
Oh and the argument that more innocent people could be harmed by the guilty men going free is fallacious. You don’t know what those men were convicted for, it might be non-violent crimes for all you know. The point is if you don’t know you can’t presume it. Otherwise I could counter it by some other fallacious argument like 'the innocent man had ten kids and he was the sole bread winner in the family thus by sending him to jail you would be starving to death his 10 kids'
you fool. either way is preposterous. the reality is either you are saying the guilty magically learned their lesson and became model citizens, or you could add a touch of realism and say many of them will probably commit crimes again
I think it would be upvoted if it was the death penalty instead of just jail.
I'm mostly against the death penalty unless there's DNA evidence or even video evidence. But if there is just the tiniest shadow of a doubt, I say throw the guy in jail. It beats being dead.
Come to Canada :)
No death penalty.
Well stay where you are, I'll be right over.
I just heard Gibbs say this on NCIS. XD
It's what our judicial system is founded on. Cannot be retried, the appeals process, a quick and fair trial by jury, all of these expensive and huge processes just to prevent an innocent person from being accused. It's because we faced horrible injustices at the hands of monarchies and dictatorships that we treasure our liberties and rights. History will show us that it is better than the alternative.
America's judicial system is not fair by any means. Take the point about not being able to be retried. What if new evidence comes up that proves without a doubt that the person was guilty/innocent? The one proved innocent (example: OJ Simpson, who wrote a BOOK about murdering his wife) will walk free and the one proved guilty will spend time in jail even though he's innocent.
You cant retry on the same facts...which makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise you could have criminals perpetually opening the case for a new trial to see if they get a different result with a different jury. The only exception is an appeal, on grounds that the judge made a mistake of law or the jury one of fact.
key word: NEW evidence.
and i think if they were to be able to retry, it would only be once more, and only if there is new evidence. if the jury still says theyre innocent, thats it, case closed.
If there is new evidence they can retry which is fair. and no. not once more. Im not sure what country you are from but in mine we have a district court, then you can appeal to the court of appeal and after that the supreme court. AND if you are wealthy enough after three trials you can go to the Privy council. Thats four trials, do we need more?
oh and you can retry if you can prove that the judge made a mistake of law...Ie doesnt have to be a mistake of fact so no need for new evidence in some cases. Im sorry but this is too easy...I actually study law.
I do think that cases should be retried if evidence is found that proves the offender guilty. It's ridiculous that you can't do much about that after the verdict is innocent. It IS horrible to let someone who is guilty walk free, but I think it's just as bad.. Or worse, to put an innocent man in jail. I'm curious to see what Casey Anthony will do and if it's anything like O.J. Simpson.
It's to prevent a trial occuring against someone prematurely, and repeatedly. They can withold a small peice of evidence, and if the jury swings the other way, the can file for a new trial with a new jury with this "new" peice of evidence. It's all protection for the accused, Innocent till proven guilty, right?
Stop the arguing let's just kill all of them
Wow, that's a really great idea! Let's! (:
I think it really just depends on what they are guilty for. Like what if the 10 guilty people are guilty for illegally downloading music?
i havent disliked it because i know that you have a sympathy with the innocent man and that does not mean that you like criminals :)
but think of what the criminals would do once they were free again. it is really one innoccent or many.
i completely agree that if criminals are set free, they will create a havoc; but, is it really going to happen? think practically, government is not going to release them.
here actbadlookgood has given an exaggerated statement but her intention is to sympathize the condition of an innocent victim :)
be that as it may, what was said is accurate
Why do people assume that if a murderer isn't in jail he's going to spend all of his time plotting his next murder? Not all murderers are serial killers and whether they go to jail or not most of them only commit one murder.
But you have to agree that if 10 criminals go free, at least one of them is going to commit another crime. They're not all going to say "well, I learned my lesson. I'll never do anything like that again."
Yes you can assume that they will commit crimes. Petty theft, maybe using drugs....Doesnt mean you should ruin a innocents life over. Oh and Only 10% of murderers commit another murder (or something around there) So even if all 10 were murderers you may assume that only one innocent person would die. But it doesnt make sense to assume that all are murders or that all are petty theives. Actually it doesnt make sense to make any assumptions on the effect they will have on other people if they go free. All we know for sure is an innocent mans life is ruined.
That statistic cannot be used because we are talking about criminal who go free, not all criminals. The rest of your comment was drivel about assumptions.
Well then dont be hypocritical. You are making asumptions about the 'societal' impact above...
and just a side note how does that effect my assumption it makes no difference. The statistic was regarding when murderers are let out of jail. They only way that stat would apply is if it were proven that jail provides some kind of rehabilitation because then the liklyhood for the two a different. But it is common knowledge that jail is not rehabilitative. in fact you more lieky to re offend if you have been to jail.
I am not being hypocritical, I was just saying that the rest of your comment didn't contain much.
And I don't understand the rest of your comment.
why cant my statistic be used? I was saying there is no difference between the likelyhood of someone reoffending a murder whether they have been to jail or not. In fact it may be the other way round. If you have been to jail you are more likely.
The statistic is being taken from a population of people who were caught, therefore it cannot be applied to a population of people who weren't caught. If you get away with a crime, don't you think you'd be a lot more willing to re-commit that crime?
I dont know where but i have heard that jail increases the likelyhood of reoffending. WHich makes sense really because you are stuck in a building of criminals. It is esspecially true for young offenders. It is well known that jail is not rehabilatative. I think the crux of the whole issue is that those ten guilty people have already committed the crime. Thus the societal impact cannot be reversed by setting them free. Yes there is a higher chance they will reoffend than an random sample, but the fact is you dont know that. You wouldnt send a man to jail because he was more liekly to have done it or even if he had 'probably done it' you are saying that it is better for one mans life is ruined for that probability (even if it is higher than ave) that may or may not come to pass.
I wrote this below but ill say it again bcause your comment is common. the argument that more innocent people could be harmed by the guilty men going free is fallacious. You don’t know what those men were convicted for, it might be non-violent crimes for all you know. The point is if you don’t know you can’t presume it. Otherwise I could counter it by some other fallacious argument like 'the innocent man had ten kids and he was the sole bread winner in the family thus by sending him to jail you would be starving to death his 10 kids'
Irrelevant. I didn't say anything about the type of crimes committed.
Do you agree that a random sample of 10 criminals are more likely to cause negative societal effects than a random sample of 10 civilians?
If so, then you voted the wrong way.
Now you are ignoring the other side of the argument. What about the societal effect of an innocent man going to jail? Yes there is a higher probability of of negative societal effects caused by those ten people. Would you condemn a man because of the PROSSIBLE negative soceital impact? Furthermore you cant measure what that societal impact will be. It may be less than that one innocent it maybe more. You dont know for sure, but one thing you do know is that that innocent person will be jailed for a crime he didnt commit
Oh and if so, You voted the wrong way
What possible negative societal effect could locking up an innocent man have? Maybe an individual and familial effect, but not societal.
And you also know that 10 guilty people will walk free. So we're back to square one. Good day.
Why is the effect on his family not societal? haha of course it is. they are guilty of crimes they have already commited!! You dont know they will commit again. Do you see now?
Haha I do agree with that, and I'm not saying that they'll just automatically change their ways.. But if one person wasn't murdered/raped/robbed, then someone else would be.
That's a fair statement, but is that probability worth putting an innocent person in jail? I mean, when you put someone in jail (if it's for an extended period of time), you're basically stealing their life.
Why are you defending murderers?
How is that defending murderers? I'm trying to bring to light a common misconception
I don't think they're defending murderers.. They're just stating that just because someone committed a crime such as murder once doesn't necessarily mean they will do it again. Some people will kill just to kill when they don't even know the person.. ex. a serial killer. And there are people who murder people they know for a reason. They're both bad, but you can't assume they'll commit more crimes before they actually do.
It's a lot better to not let them get the chance to commit another crime
Can't believe there is much a high proportion of morons.
There will always be criminals. Put 10 criminals in prison, and others will take their place. Its not like crime will cease to exist. Punishing an innocent man, however, is a crime on behalf of the society. We are making one suffer without cause. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy . . . but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”-Harper Lee. I am aware that sometimes innocent people slip through the system, but given a person that is without a doubt innocent I would hate to live in a society that would condemn him.
So much for POTD comment fame when you're the 159th comment -.-
People voting NW: if you sent in a law school application arguing that it's better for innocent people to be thrown in prison than guilty people being set free, it would be burned up and laughed at, just saying.
I don't know about TEN criminals for one innocent. It also depends on what the ten criminals have done and what kind of sentence the innocent person has gotten.
That's a better comparison I think, than say 1 guilty man to 1 innocent man. My opinion still remains the same, pretty much regardless the situation.
No i dont think it depends on the circumstances at all. Read my above comment. An effective justice system is more concerned about getting the right people in jail than how many people get free becuase of reasonable doubt (reasonable doubts is there for a reason). The system fails if you send an innocent to jail.
Imagine a system where people were more concerned with locking as many guilty people up than the accuracy of those convicted!
and your point is...?
Actually, Casey Anthony wasn't convicted because the plaintiffs did not have enough details to convict her. We all know she did it just through a gut feeling, but The plaintiffs didn't even know the girl's cause of death. Our justice system is based on the principle " one is innocent until proven guilty." Sadly we couldn't link the girl's death back to Casey, but she will get what she deserves.
Sheesh. Has anyone seen Shawshank Redemption? Am I the only who went there.......?
Seriously, think about it. If one innocent man is in jail he'll be like, "Wait, what? I was on my couch, then some asshole rapes a girl and now I'm serving life ?"
If 10 guilty men go free, if they have changed theur ways, the result will be the same as if you jailed them. If not, they go to court again, and proabbly be charged. Aslo, innocent until rpoven guilty. It is impossible to PROVe an innocent man guilty, cos he didn't do it, in the same way that you can't prove that 1+1=3 cos it doesn't
Obviously if there is no evidence whatsoever against the person, they have a sturdy alibi, and there is no motive for the crime you should not put them in jail. I thought of this post more as an innocent person wrongly proved guilty with false evidence, eyewitnesses, or probable cause against them. The question is should we not jail these people? Casey Anthony is one of these people. Would it be so bad having her in prison though there was no time of death or cause of death? I feel like I'd rather have Casey Anthony in prison than ten criminals running around even though she could be innocent. If it was one criminal for one innocent, I'd say yes, but ten seems too big a number.
Wait are you suggesting that due to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, the court system is so perfect that no innocent person has EVER gone to jail?
they have, but they're not happy about it and society still has a free guilty guy
But you just said it's impossible to prove an innocent man guilty. I mean yeah, technically that's true, but obviously you can provide enough evidence to make him look guilty, so how did that reinforce your argument in the slightest?
its cos the court is not perfect. The court also would not have one guy in jail for a crime done by 10 people.
Of course the court isn't perfect, that's exactly what this post is about.
And also I don't think you understood the post, an innocent man isn't going to jail for something done by ten people. It's saying it would be better for there to be ten people who committed a crime to go free than for someone who didn't commit a crime to end up in jail, assuming the cases are unrelated.
oh i see.
so let 10 murderers free instead of sending one guy to jail, now assuming each murderer kills only one person, let 10 people die instead of letting one innocent guy got jail?
Who says they are murderers? And by the way you said "murderers" not "serial killers," therefore implying that they won't go out and kill more people.
What it the guys a mob boss who gets people killed, or a hitman or just a guy with a bad temper and a gun.
Even if they aren't all serial killers, there are still rapists pedophiles, con artists etc who can kill or psychologically traumatize/wipe out life savings. And if there are 10 of them, each will have more than one victim so it's still pretty bad
Imagine if the man who was falsely convicted was to face the death penalty? What if the criminals who were hypothetically freed were put in jail for breaking and entering or something? It all depends on circumstance in my opinion.
Even worse. And not all of these criminals are murderers either.. It could be something for a misdemeanor, not that it matters.
That's why I said that it all depends on circumstance :)
Yeah, I know. But even if they were murderers or rapists, I'd still rather free them than have the innocent man in jail.
because rapists and murderers only ruin one life, so letting two or three of them out, along with thieves and other criminals, would by far be the better than messing one life up... oh wait... rapists and murderers ruin far more than one life...
Imagine if the falsely convicted guy gets 2 weeks a minimum security and is pardoned after, but 10 serial rapists/murderers who WILL re-offend are released? It all depends on circumstances in my opinion.
I can't vote, but I'll comment.
I have no idea how I'd vote. I don't know for what any of these people are going to jail. If it were ten murderers being set free because of one innocent man, then I think I'd pick to keep the innocent man in jail. Where's the grey-scale here? There is no full yes or no to this, if you ask me.
Your logic is so...horrible. "Well, crime will happen anyway, and not ALL of the criminals will commit another crime, so it's okay if one of those is a serial killer and isn't jailed!"
Do you not agree that crimes will be committed regardless? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against murder and all that, but an innocent man deserves to be free. Those are his individual rights that should never be taken from him.
They will be committed regardless, but to believe that letting more criminals that have been proven to commit crimes loose and not expect any negative repercussions is ridiculous.
I fully understand that there might be negative consequences, but not always is that the case. I would still want an innocent man free.
There would be enough innocent men in jail that I can guarantee that if you let any number out with each innocent man, there WILL be consequences.
Okay, but there are sooooo many guilty people in this world that won't even be charged or tested for anything ever, especially if they're not in America. It's not like someone is just going to decide to let random guilty men run free, but that's not the point I'm trying to make, because I very highly doubt that anyone will ever have to decide whether or not to let 10 guilty men free and put an innocent man in jail. There are consequences of putting an innocent man in jail, believe it or not. The judicial system has failed and it takes away a person's rights. Those are simply facts.
So since there are already criminals running around, but also millions in prison, prison serves no purpose because they don't catch everybody, and occasionally, they catch the wrong person? GREAT point
Prison serves a purpose for those who have been charged guilty of a crime.. That person still has to serve time in jail
Yes, and to keep them from committing more crimes. You're contradicting yourself.
But that doesn't always happen. and how am I doing that?
By saying it's okay to let people go, but stating why prison is important.
Not always, but if you have multiple groups of 10 criminals that are freed, you will have a lot that will commit crimes. That's like saying, "Well, murderers aren't ALWAYS planning murders, so they shouldn't be put in jail."
I never said it's okay to let criminals go? I said I would rather let 10 criminals free than put one man in jail. That doesn't mean it's morally right either way.
And I disagreed with your statement.
Yes, obviously and that's fine. We have our own opinions.
Isn't this the belief of the US court system, word for word?
It's the belief of Bobby Donnell from"The Practice".
I think it'd be better for an innocent guy to be arrested if the ten others are like mass murderers or something.. just for the safety of the public
Read my above comment: you cant presume things in your argument
If you were that innocent guy, would you feel the same way? And even with those ten mass murderers in jail, people will still be murdered.
At least you'd be preventing more murders by keeping the mass murderers in jail. One person spending their life in jail is a lot better than having 10 other people killed.
No. the argument that more innocent people could be harmed by the guilty men going free is fallacious. You don’t know what those men were convicted for, it might be non-violent crimes for all you know. The point is if you don’t know you can’t presume it. Otherwise I could counter it by some other fallacious argument like 'the innocent man had ten kids and he was the sole bread winner in the family thus by sending him to jail you would be starving to death his 10 kids'
You could say the same thing in reverse though. What if the innocent man goes to jail on something small and spends a month in jail while 10 mass murderers go free? You don't know what the innocent man or guilty men are convicted of. Is it better for an innocent man to spend a month in jail over an unpaid parking ticket than to let 10 people sure to murder again go free? Yes, it is better.
It's not selfish when you are an innocent man. You have individual rights that shouldn't put you in jail for a crime you didn't commit.
Most of you are looking at this like it's either black or it's white with no in between. It's actually grayscale. The problem is our judicial system is built on everything being correct or inccorrect with no in between. We (Americans) don't have an effective way to deal with a case like this.
What about Troy Davis? He might have been innocent. Would the people voting NW really rather support an innocent man getting killed even though there aren't sufficient evidence against him than 10 guilty men walking free?
Well this was successful.
Read above comment. you cannot presume things in your arguement. otherwise i could say: 'the innocent man had ten kids and he was the sole bread winner in the family thus by sending him to jail you would be starving to death his 10 kids'
Besides: An effective justice system is measured in the accuracy of the convivted in jail. If an innocent person i sent to jail, then justice has effectively failed. Guilty people go free all the time, and that makes sense if you are to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Its called reasonable doubt. Imagine a system which was more concerned about locking as many guilty people up than the accuracy of those convicted!
oh and maybe you can assume that most a repeat offenders. But that only exists in the case of petty theft or drug use. So you would condemm a innocent to jail so some people dont suffer from petty theft. Or have to find another drug dealer...
Do NOT make fallicous assumptions in your argument
it is not fallicious. it is reason. you are very nearly saying that no crimes are commited multiple times, and those that are are all minor.
Thats not what im saying. And absolutly you cannot assume that! most crimes are non-violent and even those that are could be one offs. Your not getting it. A justice system, any justice system if more concerned with the accuracy of those convicted! you would not convict a person because they 'probably did it'. The liklyhood of them doing it was high, sure but send that person to jail would be a huge misscarriage of justice. What i 10% (ratio of the op) of all people in jail were innocent?
Reasonable doubt is there to protect every person in society from being convicted for a crime they didnt commit. that includes you.
And if you can assume that then i think i can 'definitely assume' the inncocent guy has a family. the thing is the only thing you can truely assume is that effectivley that inncocent mans life if ruined. But there is no guarenntee that others will die/ be raped if you let the 10 go.
Of course it can't be completely fair either way, but we have individual rights and if we are innocent, we should be free. No matter what. Not all criminals necessarily ARE going to commit crimes, and although it is likely, you can't always automatically assume that. Even regardless of their crime committed, the innocent man did nothing, so he in no way deserves to be in jail. What if you were the innocent man? Would your opinion change then?
not all criminals will commit a second crime*
It's not being selfish, it's being allowed your RIGHTS.
The judicial system can't help that. They CAN help whether they send an innocent man to jail or not.
The whole point of the judicial system is to protect the general public. They are supposed to be protecting peoples rights to not be murdered, stolen from, etc.
Argreed. The only thing you can know for sure is that an innocents mans life if effectively ruined, Everything else is an assumption. The judicial system is to keep innocent people out of jail. It is the Police who are supposed to prevent crime.
And the judicial does a better job of keeping the innocent out of jail than the guilty in jail.. Which is how it should be. Not that criminals shouldn't be in jail, but the innocent comes first.
how about we settle this, hmmm? if you were the innocent, would you want you and ten criminals set free, or do the time and keep those who deserve it in prison? vote yes to keep them in and no to let them go.
I love controversial POTDs. More fun to read.
except i hate how so many people just state their opinions without actually debating. It also sucks how people repeat arguments because they don't read through what's already been said.
I wonder if the people who voted no stopped to think that maybe that innocent person could be them?
you expect people to read all that crap
It's reasonable to expect people to read the first comment
YEAH THATS MY BEST FRIENDS POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aren't you mad that it's not yours?
Holly crap, all these thousands of pple, have no idea, that this principle is the principle that forms the foundations of western justices systems including america's. and they have no idea that this quote is historical and not from this lady. Clearly there is thus a problem with the justice system as it should be more democratic and represent the populations values more.
Haha thank you! You are so correct.
Depends on how guilty the people are
What about the innocent man that is murdered because guilty criminals weren't put in jail?
I don't really have a standpoint on this, but I'm just thinking; a lot of people are saying that someone innocent should not have to suffer, but by letting 10 criminals loose, I think you increase the risk of innocent people being harmed, and more than one for that matter. Just saying.
Now, exactly HOW guilty are these ten men?
Are we talking murder-guilty or petty theft-guilty? Because petty theft guilty, I'd definitely let them go, but murder-guilty...
Exactly, it's too situational to take a firm position on...
An effective justice system is measured in the accuracy of the convivted in jail. If an innocent person i sent to jail, then justice has effectively failed. Guilty people go free all the time, and that makes sense if you are to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Its called reasonable doubt. Personally i would rather 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer because of the system.
Yeah, same here.
I agree. It's not like those men are mass murderers or serial killers or something; maybe they just killed that one person because of something between them or by accident or something, doesn't mean that they're going to kill more people. Or maybe they're just thieves. Of course they deserve to be in prison, and should be in prison, but I prefer to have 10 criminals on the loose than one innocent man being in prison for something he didn't commit. Think of that man's life, his kids, his wife, his parents.
That's another good point. Imagine how traumatizing it would be for the family of the innocent man. It would definitely do some damage.. Probably way more than to the family of the guilty men.
This argument is completely flawed because I can just say the innocent man had no family. Assuming almost anything can immediately be countered.
Well think about how traumatizing it would be for him/her. read this article and imagine what it would be like.
Yeah. ): Imagine his wife, living her life, raising her kids alone, having everyone hate her because they think her husband is a criminal, trying to convince people all the time that her husband is innocent. And the kids; being made fun of at school, being ashamed, disliking their dad, not knowing what to believe; whether their dad is innocent or a criminal. His parents being ashamed of their son, not knowing if he really is innocent, trying their best to get him out of jail. It would suck for them. And of course, I also pity a guilty man's family because they didn't do anything wrong, but at least that man should've thought of his family before committing that crime.
All of that is so true. If the guilty man's family didn't know he did anything wrong and think he is innocent, then there shouldn't be nearly as many problems for them.
Tell that to the mother of the murdered boy.
YO PEOPLE, THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY!!!!!!!
Would you rather Sirius Black be out of prison and everyone know that he's innocent and no need for him to hide anymore but at the same time those other 10 death eaters who were in prison (Bellatrix, Rowle, etc, you know those who were out in the 5th book) to also be out of Azkaban OR, Sirius and all of the others be in Azkaban, despite Sirius being innocent.
but not all criminals are exactly on par with death eaters. You are assuming those 10 guilty people are the most dangerous ones in jail. Although I like the analogy.
Yeah but that was my point, even though those 10 death eaters were really dangerous, but I prefer Sirius to be free and at the same time have those 10 death eaters on the loose, but just as long as Sirius is free since he's innocent. Thanks lol :D
Ahhh I get it. Sorry haha. Now I really like the analogy.
Aww haha thanks :D
I'd rather he stay in Azkaban. But, we also know the outcome of those freed Death Eaters (mass murder) and we also know that Sirius dies anyway. Also, we know that nobody thinks he's innocent. So really... I'd rather he stay.
Why shouldn't the 10 men go free? It's an innocent man that didn't do anything. At least those people spent some time in jail for their crimes. Also, whether they're murders, rapists, identity thieves, or whatever, people are still going to be murdered, raped, and stolen from (as actbadlookgood stated above). People need to open their eyes and realize there is never going to be "world peace."
Of course, the FIRST Post of the Day I get, and it's way in the negatives. Accomplisments.. (:
What do you mean?
No one really gives a fucking flying sloths nipple.
Maybe they don't have a name to show? At least they don't use stupid attacks like that.
Yeah, I mean, imagine if the innocent man was your dad or something.
This is a quote from someone, isn't it?
And I completely agree with it
Haha I have no idea. I'm sure lots of people have said it. Lol but thank you!
This is a very unique and interesting debate. Thanks for bringing it up!
My point of view is that there are 11 men, 10 guilty and 1 innocent. None of them could have been proven 100% guilty. All of them looked suspicious and were suspects to a crime. In this case, we let all of them go. The chances of the actual guilty ones committing another crime are much higher than the 1 innocent and therefore, the 10 others will most likely end up in the judicial process again with charges against them.
I think so too.. After reading all the stuff about the Casey Anthony trial and seeing it all over the news, it just made me think about it.
I just edited that... is that close to how you view it?
That's actually an interesting way of putting this subject.. I wasn't thinking of it at all like that actually though. The way I portrayed this post is there are 11 different crimes that aren't connected in any way. I didn't mean it like all 11 of these criminals are involved in the same case. Is that how you meant it?
No, I meant separate crimes. The only thing these suspects have in common is that there isn't good evidence against them.
Gotcha. The way I meant it though is that they have been proven guilty or innocent already.
This is actually a pretty cool post (despite the negative score). I'm pretty sure I disagree, but you've gotten people thinking and talking, which is great :)
Haha thanks! I don't mind at all that it's a negative score though, because it's still my opinion and people definitely are "discussing" it. :)
you are gay. end of discussion.
You are totally using the wrong definition of gay here, but that's not the point. If me being gay is your only argument, then get off of here because it is a pointless, irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with this post. If you disagree with me, fine. I don't care; this is my opinion. But if you're going to comment everything calling me gay, you're just being completely immature and it makes you look ridiculous. If I have an argument for something, I will do it in a manner that doesn't make me look like an idiot and not call someone gay just simply because they posted something I don't agree with. It's also not necessary for you to repeatedly call me it either, and if you're going to make yourself look like a fool, don't be anonymous and not tell me who you really are. And especially don't make a user name that says actbadlookgoodisgay? That's really immature. I understand you don't see my point of view, and yes, I will try to see yours, but I'm not going to want to discuss it with you if you call me gay. Thanks. Have a gooood day
and the biggest reason for the name is to let out frusteration and hostility without making my posts too viscious.
well how about this for an argument: many a good person has written that they would rather go to prison then let the ten criminals go free. every time you come back with the same "argument" of why they are wrong. then you go and contradict yourself by saying that you agree with the judicial system, then also saying that it is wrong. you say oh well they probably wont commit another crime anyway, and they probably were in prison for something minor. then you also say " umm how did i contradict myself by saying one thing and then turning around and saying another?" and "you would probably let the ten go if you were the innocent" is this you saying that we have no integrity? that can be far more offensive to far more people. you practically said that we were selfish jerks who would let another innocent go away but care too much for ourselves to do the same. next time that somebody states their opinion, do not ever take them to be selfish enough to do a thing like that. ever.
well think about it like this. if the guilty men are guilty of non violent crimes then obviously the injustice of the innocent man is worse. and if the men are guilty of violent crimes then likely hood is they well be caught again. plus the injustice of putting an innocent man in jail is due to the justice system whereas the injustice of a guilty mans crime is his own.
Yeah that's a really good way of putting it!
This is very broad. Of course, when said author was writing this post, she wasn't thinking "hm...what words can I add that will make it so that the people will know exactly what I'm thinking, including the context of the opinion and the setting from which it arose, and they will realize I only mean in THIS situation and not that one," more like "here's an opinion I have and I would like to have some quick feedback on it." But it is based so heavily on situations, based on objective/subjective views, based on doctrine/practicality...that there's too much going into the question and going into a decision that you cannot make a definite decision based just on the statement as it is. Everyone who reads this thinks of a particular situation specific to them at that time, and not necessarily because it is the situation they always associate with this question, but because they had just read about individual rights and the importance of justice and liberty in society, or, say, a man who had raped, pillaged, and burned an entire town single-handedly.
Thus I state my opinion that I have no preference for this statement.
This would make a very interesting Lincoln-Douglas debate.
No... because then the guilty men might be murderers. And then people will die...
People will die anyways, because there's no way every murderer will get put in jail.
Still, there's nothing wrong with preventing less deaths. o.o
Of course there's not, but I don't think that would really "prevent" less deaths. Statistics of people being murdered are higher than the amount of criminals set free.
you really are a fool. did you give up on cleaning your room because there is more on the ground than you had put away? did you decide to take the rest of your stuff ad throw that on the ground too? did you say "there was not enough put away to make a difference, so i took the rest out too?
Parody Post Time! You really are a ass. did you give up on using logic because there is... uh... You know what, screw this. You're a dick.
By that logic, we shouldn't have a judicial system at all because no matter what, people will still commit crimes.
Yeah, that is a good point. But I think there would most likely be less with a judicial system.
So you agree on the grand scale, but not in a microcosm? That's counter intuitive
In general, if there was no judicial system, I think more crimes would be committed. But I also believe that certain parts of it caculate into the fact that the judicial system can help you in a trial, and in the long run, it is more fair and shows more justice than none.
You're arguing something I'm not.
You said that, in a microcosm, it doesn't matter if criminals walk free because there will always be other criminals anyways. Then you came back and said that, overall, it does matter if criminals walk free.
If something is true in an infinite population, then it should also be true in a small population, amirite? And with the law of diminishing returns, it is even more important in a small population.
I'm trying to look at the big picture, and I'm trying to say that I can see it both ways. Crimes will be committed even if those particular 10 guilty men are in jail.. How did I come back and say it mattered?That is true though.
so basically you said letting the crimials go is okay? well then murderer, rapist, arsonist, necrophiliac, jewel thief, mugger, bank robber, asassin, you can go, somebody else also commits that crime, so why bother keeping you all here where you cant do so.
No I'm not saying that.
Just because they killed once doesn't mean that they'll kill other people by the truckload. Maybe it was someone that they knew personally, and that one murder was all they would/will ever commit.
But the fact that they murdered once proves that they're capable of murder, which is bad enough.
Everyone is capable of murder...
And not everyone who commits a crime will do it again.
Everyone is capable of murder. And I do think that it depends on circumstance. If 10 petty criminals were released, that's a lot differet than 10 mass murderers getting released.
Guilty of what....?
this was from the salem witch trials
the governor of MA said that quote and the witch trials were stopped
This remindes me of that guy who was convicted of a crime, spent almost his whole life in jail, and THEN proven innocent. He was innocent but just wasted his life in prison.
I think this applies for the death penalty...not for jail time, though
I'd almost rather die innocent than spend the rest of my life in jail.. Unless of course they prove me innocent while I'm in jail. I wasn't applying to a circumstance like that necessarily.
so you are saying that you would rather you and perhaps a half dozen other innocent people die,than one be uncomfortable the rest of their lives?
The death penalty, at worst, is really scary. Freeing guilty people, at worst, will lead to innocent people (including children!) being raped, tortured, mutilated, etc.
No, the death penalty, at worst, leads to the death of completely innocent people. And just because a guilty person is released, it doesn't mean they will commit a crime again (it's very rare that the "worst case" scenario would happen). If an innocent person is given the death penalty though, the worst case scenario is SURE to happen (they will definitely die).
You can't argue against the "worst case" scenario, when you brought up the worse case scenario. Worst case scenario is innocent person put to death for 10 serial killers who WILL re-offend. You can't just pic one and ignore the other. Best case scenario = 1 guy gets 2 weeks and 10 guys who got into a bar fight with friends get let out 1 day before their 2 day sentence.
Your comment makes no sense :)
How so? You argued the worst case scenario for the innocent guy, but then told favvkes that the worse case scenario rarely happens thus his argument was invalid. YOUR comment made no sense, which was the point I was trying to make.
Oh, so you just can't read.
I said the worst case scenario for the innocent guy is infinitely more common than the worst case scenario for the free guilty guys. Because EVERY innocent man put to death is going to die (MY worst case scenario), but not nearly every guilty man set free will commit multiple crimes again (favvke's worst case scenario).
Oh, so you don't understand what "worst case scenario" means?
In the worst case scenario, every guilty person will re-offend. That's the worse case scenario.
Please, don't try using sarcasm, it only makes you look dumber.
That's favvke's worst case scenario (the one that won't happen nearly every time). That's what I just said in my previous comment.
Don't be an ass.
Your worse case scenario won't happen every time. Yes, if the guy is sentenced to death he will die, in the worst case scenario. In MY worse case scenario, the guilty murderer will murder again, in every case which is the worse case scenario.
Alright I think there's some sort of miscommunication going on, because you obviously aren't understanding me exactly right. I'll lay it out -
We're talking about a crime deserving of a death penalty, a crime for which 5 (a random number) men are truly guilty; but an innocent man is convicted. That's the premise of this post.
Now in that scenario, the innocent man dies EVERY time ("my worst-case scenario). He has been convicted wrongly for the death penalty. He WILL die. In that scenario, however, the guilty men may or may not commit another crime. Yes, they may all go crazy and murder more people ("favvke's worst-case scenario"), but this is relatively unlikely. They may just as likely seek repentance for their acts and become model citizens or, more realistically, commit suicide because of the guilt.
Either way, EVERY time an innocent man is wrongly sentenced the death penalty, an innocent man dies. But NOT EVERY TIME 10 guilty men are set free do they commit all sorts of heinous acts.
NOW are we on the same page?
And by the way, I said in my original comment, I only agree with this post if we're talking about the death penalty. That's why "my worst-case scenario" happens every time. I disagree with this post if the death penalty isn't involved.
Ok, same page. But the premise of this post isn't what you stated.
Anyway, the worst case scenario is irrelevant to me because no innocent man will be put to death (where I live). Consider this; 1 innocent man will be jailed but never killed, whereas 10 guilty men will be released and may kill again.
Read my second comment - the one I posted right before you replied.
Like I said, I'm on your side if we aren't talking about the death penalty. That's what my original comment on this post was.
Then we are in agreement. Ish.
Haha yes, I believe we are. High-five.
Not to mention the agony your family and friends will be put through after your death.
the only reason why death is considered to be such a horrible thing is because it is a mystery. And if you're a sick pyscopath, you don't just stop hurting people.
AW HELL NAH.
if i was being put up in jail for no reason i would be pissed. if i knew criminals would get out if i didnt, i would go (gladly if the crimes were severe)
So you'd rather have the murderers and rapists be set free? You're sick.
Over a completely innocent person being convicted of murder? Hell yeah
Well the post doesn't say what the innocent person is being accused of...I guess being convicted for murder would be unfair if you didn't do it but I think one innocent man in prison is a fair trade for all the murders/rape that could happen if a bunch of criminals were set free.
it's not like prison life is absolutely horrible. An innocent man could deal. It's having rapists and murderers on the loose, doing unspeakable horrors to innocent people, that's truly horrible.
If you're in jail, you'll be interacting with murderers and rapists more than the average person should.
are you seriously comparing the raping/murder/mutilation of people, possibly children, to one person uncomfortably interacting with them under guard supervision?
"Uncomfortably interacting with them." Are you serious, that's all you think prison is? Just an inconvenient pastime? You're mistaken, madam. I don't think you understand the mental anguish of being torn from your family, friends, spouse, career, basically your LIFE can do to a person. And what happens when and if you get out? How many people do you think hire convicts? My brother was in prison and watched firsthand as two guys were murdered in front of him, one had his throat slit during lunch and the other had his scull cracked open with a brick during recreation time. Guard supervision, huh? To your previous comment, who ever said that the guilty people are all rapist and murderers? I'm pretty sure in America at least that more people are incarcerated for drugs than for anything else.
I know people who purposefully get sent to prison because they like it better than their actual lives. Free food, free tv, etc. Much better.
White collar prison? Because I assure you, no one I know would choose that. And if they did, it's only for a certain minimal amount of time.
Nope, it's a pretty rough prison from what I know (and I know a ton of cops). Also, for around 8 months, if they can swing it that way. Sometimes they end up there for a few years, though. They do things like beat someone with a broken beer bottle, or attack someone with a steak knife, or attempt to break into the liquor store (they can manage to get in, but all the booze is behind a counter in a big cage, so they never actually get the booze). I'm from a rough town lol.
Hmmm. You are right. The problem is that the post is so vague: would we be letting out drug users and identity theives or rapists and murderers? At least in the case of rapists and murderers, the security of one person should be sacrificed for the security of countless others.
Yes, you're right it is vague. However, I don't really agree with the rest. If you would (and haven't already) scroll down and read Dictator Courtney's comment, she summarized the situation nicely, I think. I don't want to steal her words.
Hmm. Well, my dad is in prison, for murder actually, and his prison is nothing like that. My dad has actually made friends, he met his BEST friend there actually. He's changed his life. Nothing like that has ever happened at te prison my dads in. And I guess it does happen at some prisons, but I'm pretty sure that its not like, an everyday thing. Not trying to offend, or anything.
(???): ... good for your dad? That's not sarcasm. I don't know why he killed somebody, but if you love him and he's not a threat to anyone undeserving, then that's great. I'm glad he hasn't experienced anything like that. That doesn't change anything though. My brother didn't murder anyone. He did some stupid shit when he was a teenager and then years later violated his parole. He told me about some pretty sick shit that went on in there. I'm willing to bet it's not uncommon.
Well, I'm sorry for your brother, thats really horrible. And my dad was pretty messed up when he was younger, and one day he snapped and he accidentally killed his baby. I know he's sorry and wasn't thinking and for a long time we didn't talk. But, I guess every place is different, and I guess we just dont have that many psycho badasses down here in Utah. (no sarcasm intended)
(???): Drugs? I'm not being judgmental, I have an aunt that was really messed up on drugs and the exact same thing happened, she killed her baby. She also did time and turned her life around. I don't know what prison was like for her, I wasn't supposed to know about that. Big family secret and all ...
Naw, no drugs. He had a really abusive dad, and had Post traumatic stress disorder, and he has Dependent personality disorder, so when he was left alone with five kids (3 were his) he just lost it. He's been in since 2001. He was actually sent to prison on 9/11. And he's supposed to get out in 8 years.
You know not all criminals are like the ones you see in movies or crime shows. Chill out.
Guard supervision doesn't work that well. These prisoners are dangerous either way and have the potential to stab or rape somebody. I don't want an innocent man to have to endure that.
It's not fair at all to have an innocent man put in jail. Think about it. If it's a lay out of the principles of the judicial system, the innocent man needs to be free. How would you feel if you were in jail for the rest of your life.. For a crime you DIDN'T commit? Can you imagine that? Yeah, of course it's hard to pick between the safety of society and individual rights, but in my opinion, it's better to let criminals free than put an innocent man in jail. Sorry to say, there are already millions of criminals every day who aren't convicted of anything.
I'd be fine with that new Norwegian jail. It is freaking beautiful.
Live in Norway? Can't afford a vacation? Then commit a crime! Our newly constructed five star prison has scenic views, fantastic cuisine, various luxury activities, and spectacularly furnished roo- I mean cells for all of your "rehabilitation" needs!
Yeah I've seen pictures before. As long as it's for nonviolent offenders and smaller crimes, I don't see why not. Rehabilitation > punishment.
If it's a nonviolent or small crime (misdemeanor), then you probably wouldn't go to a jail, especially like that. I don't think you need rehabiltation for a speeding ticket or something.. Ha
Yeah I meant things like financial fraud, theft, etc.
If it's such a lush place, it's probably for white collar criminals that pay for it.
heck yeah!!! and Norwegians are so beautiful.. Amirite ;)
Well, chances are you won't end up in that particular jail even if you commit a crime, and even then, you'd rather be in jail than live a free life?
How would you feel if there were 30 murderers running around your city because one guy didn't want to go to prison? The damage done by releasing criminals would be a lot more...even if you're convicted for murder you will stay alive in jail (depending on where you live) and I'm sure at least one decent person would take that chance to avoid all of the possible murders that would happen.
Those guilty people could be convicted of non violent crimes. Guilty doesn't always mean rapists and murdurists.
haha. murdurists. Someone who endures murder, amirite?
Yeah, but even if they weren't then I still don't think an innocent man should be put in jail. You're completely right though
Theres already a ton out there so 10 more to save an innocent man isn't that bad.
Jail is only a short term deal. It's generally under a year. Prison, on the other hand, is long term. Going to jail is far less terrifying than prison, where you're with criminals that have committed disgusting crimes.
why would someone favourite this post..
Yeah, they are pretty entertaining..
Maybe they liked it.
if you were that one innocent man you would think differently
Did you just not see the first comment at all?
obviously not who cares same idea
Have you just never been introduced to punctuation?
wow it's the internet who caaaaaaaaaares
I suppose it depends what the guilty men did
This is a quote from William Blackwell, also Ben Franklin said the same thing, BUT franklin said 100 innocent men not ten!
Someone may have said this earlier, the post were really long so I didn't read them.
Really what I'm getting from reading the comments is that their vote is dependent upon the variables of this situation.
There's just too much gray area.
k .. u let 10 guilty men go . .that means that another rapist or murderer is on the street .. yeah its kinda sad for the innocent man but its better to have the bad guys where they belong
It's horrible for the innocent man and our government and all. But whatever.
yeup .. too bad
127 comments already...have fun with your notifications, OP.
Um, thanks. I don't mind, I like hearing what everyone has to say.
you are gay
Haha okay. I'm gay for stating an opinion. Cooool