Arrest the innocent or let the guilty go free???

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is an age old question and one that I think is VERY relevant to many issues we face today, that I will lay out in the form of a thought experiment... maybe our legal system is set up expecting an “acceptable” amount of false convictions when the variables of every law are considered.

Just in case anyone does not know the definition of a thought experiment... you cannot think up a 3rd option to end around the choice...


That said I will be shocked if half the replies do not ignore this part and do it anyway.....

Ok.... say a guy robs a bank and kills someone, but while making his escape turns a corner so the cops lose line of sight and crashes into a totally innocent person of similar description and dress..

So the cops know one guy is innocent, and one guilty, but have no way of telling the truth... leaving the cops with 2 options assuming it is legal to do this in our fictional scenario..

A) Convict both men and stop the crook from hurting anyone else, BUT you totally destroy the life of the innocent person..

B) you let both men go free...


Also please include how many guilty people would be worth trading???

Say it were 4 robbers and still only one innocent person, for example..




I think this is super relevant, maybe in most of the legal system..


For example “all women should be believed “.. obviously you don’t have to keep believing her once her story starts falling apart, but I see no way around not giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt in that case...

Rape is such a he said -she said crime , with little or no evidence or witnesses the normal dynamic of innocent until proven guilty does not work..

If the accused is assumed innocent, the 2 parties testimony considered equal, and the only real evidence is the account of the victim, no case of rape that is not by a stranger is ever prosecuted again...

Which no doubt means innocent people will be convicted because of that dynamic.. but how many rapists would go free to rape other people..


It is such a crazy , crappy choice...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is an age old question and one that I think is VERY relevant to many issues we face today, that I will lay out in the form of a thought experiment... maybe our legal system is set up expecting an “acceptable” amount of false convictions when the variables of every law are considered.

Just in case anyone does not know the definition of a thought experiment... you cannot think up a 3rd option to end around the choice...


That said I will be shocked if half the replies do not ignore this part and do it anyway.....

Ok.... say a guy robs a bank and kills someone, but while making his escape turns a corner so the cops lose line of sight and crashes into a totally innocent person of similar description and dress..

So the cops know one guy is innocent, and one guilty, but have no way of telling the truth... leaving the cops with 2 options assuming it is legal to do this in our fictional scenario..

A) Convict both men and stop the crook from hurting anyone else, BUT you totally destroy the life of the innocent person..

B) you let both men go free...


Also please include how many guilty people would be worth trading???

Say it were 4 robbers and still only one innocent person, for example..




I think this is super relevant, maybe in most of the legal system..


For example “all women should be believed “.. obviously you don’t have to keep believing her once her story starts falling apart, but I see no way around not giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt in that case...

Rape is such a he said -she said crime , with little or no evidence or witnesses the normal dynamic of innocent until proven guilty does not work..

If the accused is assumed innocent, the 2 parties testimony considered equal, and the only real evidence is the account of the victim, no case of rape that is not by a stranger is ever prosecuted again...

Which no doubt means innocent people will be convicted because of that dynamic.. but how many rapists would go free to rape other people..


It is such a crazy , crappy choice...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is an age old question and one that I think is VERY relevant to many issues we face today, that I will lay out in the form of a thought experiment... maybe our legal system is set up expecting an “acceptable” amount of false convictions when the variables of every law are considered.

Just in case anyone does not know the definition of a thought experiment... you cannot think up a 3rd option to end around the choice...


That said I will be shocked if half the replies do not ignore this part and do it anyway.....

Ok.... say a guy robs a bank and kills someone, but while making his escape turns a corner so the cops lose line of sight and crashes into a totally innocent person of similar description and dress..

So the cops know one guy is innocent, and one guilty, but have no way of telling the truth... leaving the cops with 2 options assuming it is legal to do this in our fictional scenario..

A) Convict both men and stop the crook from hurting anyone else, BUT you totally destroy the life of the innocent person..

B) you let both men go free...


Also please include how many guilty people would be worth trading???

Say it were 4 robbers and still only one innocent person, for example..




I think this is super relevant, maybe in most of the legal system..


For example “all women should be believed “.. obviously you don’t have to keep believing her once her story starts falling apart, but I see no way around not giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt in that case...

Rape is such a he said -she said crime , with little or no evidence or witnesses the normal dynamic of innocent until proven guilty does not work..

If the accused is assumed innocent, the 2 parties testimony considered equal, and the only real evidence is the account of the victim, no case of rape that is not by a stranger is ever prosecuted again...

Which no doubt means innocent people will be convicted because of that dynamic.. but how many rapists would go free to rape other people..


It is such a crazy , crappy choice...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is an age old question and one that I think is VERY relevant to many issues we face today, that I will lay out in the form of a thought experiment... maybe our legal system is set up expecting an “acceptable” amount of false convictions when the variables of every law are considered.

Just in case anyone does not know the definition of a thought experiment... you cannot think up a 3rd option to end around the choice...


That said I will be shocked if half the replies do not ignore this part and do it anyway.....

Ok.... say a guy robs a bank and kills someone, but while making his escape turns a corner so the cops lose line of sight and crashes into a totally innocent person of similar description and dress..

So the cops know one guy is innocent, and one guilty, but have no way of telling the truth... leaving the cops with 2 options assuming it is legal to do this in our fictional scenario..

A) Convict both men and stop the crook from hurting anyone else, BUT you totally destroy the life of the innocent person..

B) you let both men go free...

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

Also please include how many guilty people would be worth trading???

Say it were 4 robbers and still only one innocent person, for example..

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is super relevant, maybe in most of the legal system..

For example “all women should be believed “.. obviously you don’t have to keep believing her once her story starts falling apart, but I see no way around not giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt in that case...

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

Rape is such a he said -she said crime,...

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

...with little or no evidence or witnesses the normal dynamic of innocent until proven guilty does not work...

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

If the accused is assumed innocent, the 2 parties testimony considered equal, and the only real evidence is the account of the victim, no case of rape that is not by a stranger is ever prosecuted again...

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

Which no doubt means innocent people will be convicted because of that dynamic.. but how many rapists would go free to rape other people.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

This is basic 101 stuff
If the prosecution can not prove someone is guility of a crime they cant be convicted for it. In your scenerio the crook would of gotten away with the crime

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

Let them.both go free

Click to expand...

Moonglow said:

Cops don't convict they arrest.

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

The more I think about it , the more I agree..

The criminal MIGHT hurt more people...

The innocent person is guaranteed to be hurt..




So what about with the military and warfare??

How many civilians is worth how many combatants??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is an age old question and one that I think is VERY relevant to many issues we face today, that I will lay out in the form of a thought experiment... maybe our legal system is set up expecting an “acceptable” amount of false convictions when the variables of every law are considered.

Just in case anyone does not know the definition of a thought experiment... you cannot think up a 3rd option to end around the choice...


That said I will be shocked if half the replies do not ignore this part and do it anyway.....

Ok.... say a guy robs a bank and kills someone, but while making his escape turns a corner so the cops lose line of sight and crashes into a totally innocent person of similar description and dress..

So the cops know one guy is innocent, and one guilty, but have no way of telling the truth... leaving the cops with 2 options assuming it is legal to do this in our fictional scenario..

A) Convict both men and stop the crook from hurting anyone else, BUT you totally destroy the life of the innocent person..

B) you let both men go free...


Also please include how many guilty people would be worth trading???

Say it were 4 robbers and still only one innocent person, for example..




I think this is super relevant, maybe in most of the legal system..


For example “all women should be believed “.. obviously you don’t have to keep believing her once her story starts falling apart, but I see no way around not giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt in that case...

Rape is such a he said -she said crime , with little or no evidence or witnesses the normal dynamic of innocent until proven guilty does not work..

If the accused is assumed innocent, the 2 parties testimony considered equal, and the only real evidence is the account of the victim, no case of rape that is not by a stranger is ever prosecuted again...

Which no doubt means innocent people will be convicted because of that dynamic.. but how many rapists would go free to rape other people..


It is such a crazy , crappy choice...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

..the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

In terms of how many? It is irrelevant. If you don't know who, you don't know who.

Rape cases are particularly diverse in nature and each one unique. Simple "how many" doesn't really apply.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

This is basic 101 stuff
If the prosecution can not prove someone is guility of a crime they cant be convicted for it. In your scenerio the crook would of gotten away with the crime

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I think this is an age old question and one that I think is VERY relevant to many issues we face today, that I will lay out in the form of a thought experiment... maybe our legal system is set up expecting an “acceptable” amount of false convictions when the variables of every law are considered.

Just in case anyone does not know the definition of a thought experiment... you cannot think up a 3rd option to end around the choice...


That said I will be shocked if half the replies do not ignore this part and do it anyway.....

Ok.... say a guy robs a bank and kills someone, but while making his escape turns a corner so the cops lose line of sight and crashes into a totally innocent person of similar description and dress..

So the cops know one guy is innocent, and one guilty, but have no way of telling the truth... leaving the cops with 2 options assuming it is legal to do this in our fictional scenario..

A) Convict both men and stop the crook from hurting anyone else, BUT you totally destroy the life of the innocent person..

B) you let both men go free...


Also please include how many guilty people would be worth trading???

Say it were 4 robbers and still only one innocent person, for example..




I think this is super relevant, maybe in most of the legal system..


For example “all women should be believed “.. obviously you don’t have to keep believing her once her story starts falling apart, but I see no way around not giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt in that case...

Rape is such a he said -she said crime , with little or no evidence or witnesses the normal dynamic of innocent until proven guilty does not work..

If the accused is assumed innocent, the 2 parties testimony considered equal, and the only real evidence is the account of the victim, no case of rape that is not by a stranger is ever prosecuted again...

Which no doubt means innocent people will be convicted because of that dynamic.. but how many rapists would go free to rape other people..


It is such a crazy , crappy choice...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

Your restriction about evidence and process is irrelevant.

First of all "Cops" don't convict anyone. They make an arrest and help collect evidence.

An investigation begins, and if there is sufficient evidence to press charges, the Prosecutor will take the case to Court.

It is up to a Jury in a Court of law to determine guilt and punishment.

Based on your story, there is insufficient evidence to convict the "innocent man," and every likelihood he could show that he was not involved.



Doesn't matter. Unless all 4 "robbers" admit to the crime and claim the innocent man was a participant, it is unlikely the innocent man will be convicted for all sorts of reasons.



No, all women should NOT "be believed" simply because they are women. If the only actual evidence is their naked word, then the accused should go free absent an admission of guilt.



Not always. But when it is simply a "he said, she said" the burden of proof still rests with the accuser.



That would depend on how long after the alleged incident occurred the rape was reported. If there is physical evidence, (vaginal bruising, semen, etc.) plus time and place evidence showing opportunity, that helps her allegations.



Not true. A Prosecutor can press the case. It is unlikely to be successful, but a case could still be made. Say rather it is highly unlikely any Prosecutor would press such a case. At least at that time.



If one accepts the premise a person can be convicted in a "fair trial" simply on the naked word of a single witness, with no forensic or other supporting evidence.

Now I understand what your thought experiment is about. It is why our system is based on innocence until proven guilty.

It is not that the accused IS actually innocent, but to prevent false accusations from sending an innocent person to prison.

Other nations, most notably Communist China, presume a person guilty and the accused has the burden of proving innocence. But we don't live under that system.

So my response is, rather let as many guilty go free as necessary to protect the innocent from being unfairly punished.

Click to expand...

Drawdown said:

Hasn't kept the democrats from trying with Trump

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

Good question. If you can take out Hitler and end the war but you have to kill 200 civilians to do it......do you do it?

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

A) yet a 3rd person who does not know the definition of a thought experiment, even though I gave it in the OP which you clearly read......

So I am hopeful the rest of your post does not continue on that trend..


B) Jesus Christ!!

You read the definition of a thought experiment...

Then You read what should have been my totally unnecessary disclaimers saying “assuming that is the legalityin our little fictional universe.”


And yet you still spent 20 min writing a post that is totally irrelevant as it ignores the entire point of a thought experiment...


In a thought experiment you are assuming the variables laid out and you cannot come up with 3rd option to end around the entire point of A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT!


Lmao...

Man people need a dictionary..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

So my response is, rather let as many guilty go free as necessary to protect the innocent from being unfairly punished.

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

How is that different from convicting an innocent person???


the criminal MIGHT kill ten more people..

The city they bomb MIGHT kill ten times the civilians that it saves US soldiers..

I’m not sure the fundamentals are different at all.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

Good question. If you can take out Hitler and end the war but you have to kill 200 civilians to do it......do you do it?

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

I’m also not sure I buy into the “great man” theory over the “trends and forces” theory..

They either assume that history is pushed forward by exceptional individuals or the trends and forces of the time and someone would have risen to fill the void regardless..

So im not sure that killing the king is not more than an imaginary finish line to end a conflict.. the trends and forces that led to the conflict likely would not change..

Germany got screwed in WW1 which was not the good vs. evil that WW2 was.. that lead to incredible animosity to both the elites of Germany who surrendered and the rest of the allies.. so a hard right nationalist was always gonna win in that environment.. in any country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

1. Your "thought experiment" was poorly worded, hence the "piece by piece analysis" showing it's poor organization.

2. I did respond to it anyway as requested...or did you miss this part?:




Whether it be one or a hundred, follow the process of presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nuff said, :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

ArtemisBarca said:

Boy I called that lol.. 1 out of the first 2 posts does not know the definition of a thought experiment AND didn’t bother to read the OP which specifically stated “assuming that is legal in our little fictional universe.”

In real life the accused are not necessarily tried together either..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

Good question. If you can take out Hitler and end the war but you have to kill 200 civilians to do it......do you do it?

Click to expand...

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Click to expand...