It's better to let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail, amirite?

The people who voted NW would probably change their mind if they were the innocent person going to jail.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nah, I'd just hire Casey Anthony's lawyer. I would be out of there faster than you could say "not guilty".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, obviously. Our bias would set in, skewing our objectivity.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Agh. long reply. Too. Many. Words.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i'd gladly serve a couple years to see a serial killer jailed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You'll be charged for their crime. You really think serial killers serve two years?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The people who voted YYA would probably change their mind if they were the guilty person's next victim.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you'd rather have the murderers and rapists be set free? You're sick.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Over a completely innocent person being convicted of murder? Hell yeah

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you're in jail, you'll be interacting with murderers and rapists more than the average person should.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

are you seriously comparing the raping/murder/mutilation of people, possibly children, to one person uncomfortably interacting with them under guard supervision?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(???): ... 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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(???): 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 ...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You know not all criminals are like the ones you see in movies or crime shows. Chill out.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'd be fine with that new Norwegian jail. It is freaking beautiful.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

#1333656 Did you see the jail, though? You have a private bathroom, you actually do have a nice view, and you have the chance to get college degrees and whatnot. It's a lot better than how some people live. It'd practically be a free life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah I meant things like financial fraud, theft, etc.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If it's such a lush place, it's probably for white collar criminals that pay for it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

heck yeah!!! and Norwegians are so beautiful.. Amirite ;)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Those guilty people could be convicted of non violent crimes. Guilty doesn't always mean rapists and murdurists.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

haha. murdurists. Someone who endures murder, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Theres already a ton out there so 10 more to save an innocent man isn't that bad.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I really don't think either are better or worse than the other.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

He also takes buttloads in jail.

... or depending on your perspective hello

by Anonymous 13 years ago

<koolaidman>OOOOH YEAAAH</koolaidman>

by Anonymous 13 years ago

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No... because then the guilty men might be murderers. And then people will die...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People will die anyways, because there's no way every murderer will get put in jail.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Still, there's nothing wrong with preventing less deaths. o.o

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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 Anonymous 13 years ago

By that logic, we shouldn't have a judicial system at all because no matter what, people will still commit crimes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, that is a good point. But I think there would most likely be less with a judicial system.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you agree on the grand scale, but not in a microcosm? That's counter intuitive

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No I'm not saying that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But the fact that they murdered once proves that they're capable of murder, which is bad enough.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everyone is capable of murder... And not everyone who commits a crime will do it again.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why are you defending murderers?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is that defending murderers? I'm trying to bring to light a common misconception

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's a lot better to not let them get the chance to commit another crime

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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'

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh and if so, You voted the wrong way

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think this applies for the death penalty...not for jail time, though

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not to mention the agony your family and friends will be put through after your death.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your comment makes no sense :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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). Understand now?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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. Understand now?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then we are in agreement. Ish.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha yes, I believe we are. High-five.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

High-five!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Even worse. And not all of these criminals are murderers either.. It could be something for a misdemeanor, not that it matters.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's why I said that it all depends on circumstance :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, I know. But even if they were murderers or rapists, I'd still rather free them than have the innocent man in jail.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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'

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Read my above comment: you cant presume things in your argument

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, same here.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This argument is completely flawed because I can just say the innocent man had no family. Assuming almost anything can immediately be countered.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well think about how traumatizing it would be for him/her. read this article and imagine what it would be like. http://www.khou.com/news/Family-waits-for-exonerated-Houston-man-to-be-released--99636634.html

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Tell that to the mother of the murdered boy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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!"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I fully understand that there might be negative consequences, but not always is that the case. I would still want an innocent man free.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

</sarcasm>

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Prison serves a purpose for those who have been charged guilty of a crime.. That person still has to serve time in jail

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, and to keep them from committing more crimes. You're contradicting yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But that doesn't always happen. and how am I doing that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And I disagreed with your statement.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, obviously and that's fine. We have our own opinions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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'

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just edited that... is that close to how you view it?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I meant separate crimes. The only thing these suspects have in common is that there isn't good evidence against them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Gotcha. The way I meant it though is that they have been proven guilty or innocent already.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

127 comments already...have fun with your notifications, OP.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Um, thanks. I don't mind, I like hearing what everyone has to say.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you are gay

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha okay. I'm gay for stating an opinion. Cooool

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Stop the arguing let's just kill all of them

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wow, that's a really great idea! Let's! (:

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Depends on how guilty the people are

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ahhh I get it. Sorry haha. Now I really like the analogy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Aww haha thanks :D

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah that's a really good way of putting it!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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 :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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. :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you are gay. end of discussion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

and the biggest reason for the name is to let out frusteration and hostility without making my posts too viscious.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sheesh. Has anyone seen Shawshank Redemption? Am I the only who went there.......?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's horrible for the innocent man and our government and all. But whatever.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeup .. too bad

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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 :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

but think of what the criminals would do once they were free again. it is really one innoccent or many.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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 :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

be that as it may, what was said is accurate

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So much for POTD comment fame when you're the 159th comment -.-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

herpes lawyer

by Anonymous 13 years ago

AW HELL NAH.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I love controversial POTDs. More fun to read.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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. In short: 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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

they have, but they're not happy about it and society still has a free guilty guy

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

its cos the court is not perfect. The court also would not have one guy in jail for a crime done by 10 people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

oh i see.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

if you were that one innocent man you would think differently

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Did you just //not// see the first comment at all?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

obviously not who cares same idea

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have you just //never// been introduced to punctuation?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

wow it's the internet who caaaaaaaaaares

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guilty of what....?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I suppose it depends what the guilty men did

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

this was from the salem witch trials the governor of MA said that quote and the witch trials were stopped

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What about the innocent man that is murdered because guilty criminals weren't put in jail?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I wonder if the people who voted no stopped to think that maybe that innocent person could be them?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Of course, the FIRST Post of the Day I get, and it's way in the negatives. Accomplisments.. (:

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Can't believe there is much a high proportion of morons.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think it would be upvoted if it was the death penalty instead of just jail.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

YEAH THATS MY BEST FRIENDS POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

LOL!!!!! -_-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

aren't you mad that it's not yours?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, I mean, imagine if the innocent man was your dad or something.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well this was successful.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Isn't this the belief of the US court system, word for word?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's the belief of Bobby Donnell from"The Practice".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

why would someone favourite this post..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe they liked it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just heard Gibbs say this on NCIS. XD

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly, it's too situational to take a firm position on...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha thank you! You are so correct.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is a quote from someone, isn't it? And I completely agree with it

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha I have no idea. I'm sure lots of people have said it. Lol but thank you!

by Anonymous 12 years ago