Do You Agree With This Statement?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Makedde, Sep 22, 2011.

?

Do You Agree With The Statement Below?

Poll closed Apr 9, 2012.
  1. Yes

    74.4%
  2. No

    25.6%
  1. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "It is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned''

    Do you agree or disagree? Is it worth letting an innocent man rot in prison for the sake of getting the bad guy?

    Explain your answers.
     
  2. Mr. Fingers

    Mr. Fingers Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Depends on the crimes (and future crimes) of the 10 guilty men....
     
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely.

    Incarceration violates the inalienable Right of Liberty of a person. The violation of such a Right can only be pragmatically justified when there is clear evidence that a person has violated the inalienable Rights of others and presents a threat to society that they will continue to do so if they are not incarcerated. Incarceration can only be justified when it is to protect the Rights of the Individuals in society from the acts of a person where proof exists that they would violate them.

    This argues against incarceration of an individual for victimless crimes. Laws which incarcerate a person who has not violated the Rights of others cannot be pragmatically supported. The purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the People. Only pragmatic infringments upon those Rights can be justified and then it should always be to the minimum extent possible to achieve that protection. The government should not be in the business of "revenge" as revenge (punishment) does not protect anyone's Rights nor does it reflect "justice" as some would propose.
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the big picture, yes.

    If it was just that, one guy in prison or ten guys outside, it would be harder, and depending on what crimes are involved and other technicalities, but that's not how reality works.

    Innocents aren't kept out of prison because of the legal system's amazing effort, they're kept out of prison because the legal system makes it a hassle for anyone to lock someone up without proper proof.

    If it would be reliable to get an innocent man in prison (and if it's possible, people will find reliable ways) that would be the safest and most reliable way to get someone out of the way.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately we've seen to many cases where prosecutors or the police simply ignore the law and use coercion and even planted evidence to obtain convictions. They are more concerned with sending someone to jail than they are in ensuring that the innocent are not sent to jail.

    Of note Troy Davis was executed last night even though 7 of 9 "eye witnesses" have come on stating that they were coerced by the police into indentifying Troy Davis and he was not the person that commited the crime. 1 of the 2 that also testified against Troy Davis was the second suspect in the crime. That left one eye witness that has not recanted their testimony and that we might consider as unbiased. Was an innocent man executed? We will probably never know for sure but it appears to be the case. There was certainly a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and yet he was killed by the State of Georgia last night.
     
  6. Libhater

    Libhater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,500
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Didn't Scooter Libby do time for the crime committed by another man?
     
  7. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's no news that the American justice system has more holes than a cheese grater after a gunfight but I believe that the political lawyers are a worse problem than the criminal lawyers. But that might just me not being arrested in the US.
     
  8. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Generally I would say yes, but if some of the ten were completely insane or an extreme danger, then I would reconsider the question.
     
  9. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,592
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed I do agree with it.

    The presumption of innocence and placing the onus on the government to prove it's case seems to have set the standard for the civilized world. It eliminated totalitarianism, at least here, and keeps the government in check in the justice system.
     
    RiseAgainst and (deleted member) like this.
  10. P. Lotor

    P. Lotor Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would you rconsider if you were the one innocent man?
     
  11. P. Lotor

    P. Lotor Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree revenge for the sake of revenge has no place in the system, but do you think punishment, not just reasonable prevention of future rights violations, can act as a deterrent to others?
     
  12. Beevee

    Beevee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As long as the political ambitions of a person with responsibility for the justice system gets in the way of the accusations against and sentencing of those found guilty, nothing will change.
     
  13. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the grand scheme of things, the statement is correct.
    It's really kind of hard to argue against (I tried in my head).
    If you are a retributionist, you must consider how antithetical to retribution it is to punish the wrong man while the right one is still out there (the double-effect of wrongful incarceration).
    If you are a utilitarian, perhaps you could argue that ten Mansons loose might outweigh the good of one innocent man being free... but this is kind of a cop-out. To be fair we'd have to assume a random group of guilty people and one random innocent. This forces us to look at the fact that people are more than their crimes. One who commits a crime is not necessarily going to be a criminal forever (though if he goes to prison, he's probably even more likely to continue on as one) and probably on average, criminals do some good (as most people have committed crimes of some sort in their lives)... and if one is a career criminal, assuming he's not a mob boss or some powerful criminal, he's likely to pay the price naturally. An innocent guy in prison is one who will contribute nothing to society, whose chance of living legitimately once out is decreased.
     
  14. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ShivaTD: "Unfortunately we've seen to many cases where prosecutors or the police simply ignore the law and use coercion and even planted evidence to obtain convictions. They are more concerned with sending someone to jail than they are in ensuring that the innocent are not sent to jail."

    That's true. District Attorney Nifong was not a bizarre abberation. On the other hand, we see attoneys manipulating evidence, permitting perjury, lying themselves to get their clients off. Consider O.J. Simpson.

    Very few innocent people are convicted of crimes. Far more guilty go unpunished.
     
  15. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No. If one of the guilty was a serious threat, I would go to jail.
     
  16. P. Lotor

    P. Lotor Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for your hypothetical sacrifice.
     
  17. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, I object to the premise of the statement, as it implies as fact that the margin of error in meting justice is about 10%: it is a hard and long road to establish what the error rate actually is, but anyone should be able to acknowledge that there is an error rate.

    I'll state plainly that I disagree with the attempt at a premise, but I still understand the spirit in which the question was asked, so I'll also state that I DISAGREE in general.

    Let's ask ourselves a couple of questions, and acknowledge as fact a couple of my assertions:

    1) What percentage of convictions later found to be in error (these are the only metrics through which we can establish an "error rate") involved accused who ended up being totally innocent of any wrongdoing - as opposed to still being involved in an illicit circumstance which placed them at exponentially greater risk of being accused of a crime?

    2) The main assertion I want to make in this thread is that life has risk. Living in society isn't a guarantee of perfection - or perfect justice. We all make sacrifices to assure the larger function and harmony of society overall, and one of those sacrifices is living with the reality that injustices may take place.

    We accept this reality as a cost of living in a civilized society, while working to minimize such injustices. That, however, does not change the fact that our justice system has to protect society from the harmful effects of criminals, even if it requires a margin of error in order to do so.

    3) How much societal damage takes place with those 10 guilty men, considering the known fact that a large percentage of crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders?

    How many children die at the hands of serial criminals, for instance?

    4) Capital punishment is sentenced in only the most egregious of cases, and the discernment of a jury allows the latitude to sentence life in prison as an alternative, should circumstances of a particular case warrant it.


    Those of you who cluck-cluck about "would you say the same if you were the accused" act as though a statistically realistic possibility exists that a person in totally innocent circumstances could actually be dropped into an accusation of a serious crime, and have the justice system work and still find such a person guilty.

    Such a possibility is statistically irrelevant, and part of the risk of living. I analogize this to the fact that we can all be killed in any number of ways due to one form of tragedy or another. Do we all cloister ourselves from society due to such risks?

    Not if we want to live, we don't.

    This topic is no different. So yes: I WOULD rather that "one man go to prison" instead of allowing 10 guilty men go free, and I believe that my case makes far more sense than that alternative intellectually dishonest and lazy position.

    And if anyone wants to take me on regarding this fully considered position, bring it.
     
  18. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. It is worth letting 10 bad guys free over having one innocent being punished unjustly. If the bad guys are typical bad guys, they will be caught again.
     
  19. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Agree with your insinuation here. This question is a total, and very unrealistic, hypothetical. However I would still do as I said.
     
  20. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um...and what stops them from being let go again, considering the premise within the OP?

    And what damage would they have done to society to justify "catching" them again?

    Think this through better, and read my first post. If you think you have a suitable rebuttal, I'm interested.
     
  21. Travis Bickle

    Travis Bickle Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly, very well said.
     
  22. JPSartre

    JPSartre New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I disagree. You have to break some eggs to make an omlette.
    Letting 10 mass murders go free to prevent an innocent jaywalker from being wrongfully incarcerated is counter-productive to society.
     
  23. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What if it were none, absolutely, that the murderers would not kill again. Would you let the innocent guy go along with them?
     
  24. JPSartre

    JPSartre New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The ONLY way to insure they never murder again is to give them a dirt nap like the cop killer last night.
     
  25. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Forget that, its a hypothetical. Say you knew, for sure, without a doubt (you modified their brains or something) and you knew there was no way they could kill again, you'd be fine with it then, right?
     

Share This Page