• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

ArtemisBarca said:
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...

Cops don't "convict" nor do they acquit-- that is not their role. That is why there are courts with judges, lawyers, and juries.

Well, unless you are describing the criminal justice system in some 3rd word ship hole.

All of that being said, it is a far better ideal to demand the presumption of innocence and force the state to prove guild beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a shame when guilty go unpunished, but punishing the innocent is a far worse crime when the state takes away one's life and liberty.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
IT DOESNT MATTER HOW POORLY LAID OUT YOU FEEL THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT IS!! (Which I am not conceding it was, just pointing out that it is irrelevant..

Nowhere in the definition of thought experiment does it say “ well as long as it is laid out to your satisfaction... if not feel free to change the variables and come up with your own options...”


In a thought experiment you cannot change the variables AND you cannot come up with YOUR OWN 3rd option..


Get a dictionary...
Click to expand...

Allow me to help you out here a bit:

LOGIC does not take a back seat to whatever definition of "thought" or "experiment" one decides to create. There are rules when it comes to critical thinking and one is that when presented with a question where you are only given two choices, it is illogical to assume there may not be a 3rd or more options, therefore your "experiment" fails even the most elementary level of reasoning.
 
Court Jester said:
Allow me to help you out here a bit:

LOGIC does not take a back seat to whatever definition of "thought" or "experiment" one decides to create. There are rules when it comes to critical thinking and one is that when presented with a question where you are only given two choices, it is illogical to assume there may not be a 3rd or more options, therefore your "experiment" fails even the most elementary level of reasoning.
Click to expand...

Yes it does....


The variables in the thought experiment are literally irrelevant..

The ONLY part that matters is the actual question being asked..

Aka in this scenario, “is it better to jail an innocent person or let a guilty person go free, and how many guilty people equal one innocent person”.

The set up is literally just for better visualization and in no way effects the base question.

if you don’t like the set -up. Then you make your own little set up IN YOUR HEAD , but then still answer the question as laid out..


This is not rocket science.... any basic level public speaking, debate or English class that covers such things would explain it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Court Jester said:
Cops don't "convict" nor do they acquit-- that is not their role. That is why there are courts with judges, lawyers, and juries.

Well, unless you are describing the criminal justice system in some 3rd word ship hole.

All of that being said, it is a far better ideal to demand the presumption of innocence and force the state to prove guild beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a shame when guilty go unpunished, but punishing the innocent is a far worse crime when the state takes away one's life and liberty.
Click to expand...

Can you please provide a link to any definition of thought experiment that has any scenario where you can change the variables and come up with additional options???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...

Do forensics exist in this thought experiment?
 
Mason66 said:
Do forensics exist in this thought experiment?
Click to expand...

Obviously none that could separate the guilty from the innocent...

By definition, you do not get to “beat” the thought experiment.


The set up is irrelevant.... only the question of “is it better to jail an innocent or free the guilty... if it is better to free the guilty, how many guilty parties equal one innocent person being jailed?”






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...

Why does your scenario take investigation out of the equation? Security cameras. Witnesses. Alibis. Etc.

Why some bizarro alternate reality?
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Yes it does....


The variables in the thought experiment are literally irrelevant..

The ONLY part that matters is the actual question being asked..

Aka in this scenario, “is it better to jail an innocent person or let a guilty person go free, and how many guilty people equal one innocent person”.

The set up is literally just for better visualization and in no way effects the base question.

if you don’t like the set -up. Then you make your own little set up IN YOUR HEAD , but then still answer the question as laid out..


This is not rocket science.... any basic level public speaking, debate or English class that covers such things would explain it.
Click to expand...

Actually critical thinking IS akin to 'rocket science in that there are hard fast rules to how a moral question is framed. "Visualization" if for palm readers and hippies, it doesn't work to call it a thought "experiment" and then believe there are no rules of logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom