• 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!

It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly incarcerated.

It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly incarcerated.


  • Total voters
    49
You are absolutely correct. Thank you kind sir for the thread. I am sorry I forgot to include you. I blame it on the weed. ;)

Eh, really just appreciate that you put some thought into it, weed induced or not.
 
Resisting the urge to post an easy joke, you're still giving me a personal connection to it, even if I'm not the actual person. I understand you're point, I really do. Stepping into the shoes of others actually involved is valuable for gaining the perspective that we are talking about humans that have feelings, emotions, family connections, etc. That definitely shouldn't be diminished. At the same time, if the question is how would we personally would feel about any certain thing, nothing would ever be done.

It's a question of sacrifice: do you or don't you believe that a genuine sacrifice, of yourself or a loved one, is worth the containment of a hundred guilty men? If the answer is no, then perhaps it's right that some things you refer to not be done. If, however, you can only justify the sacrifice of somebody you don't know so they can remain dehumanized, then perhaps your cause is too weak to merit that sacrifice.
 
It's a question of sacrifice: do you or don't you believe that a genuine sacrifice, of yourself or a loved one, is worth the containment of a hundred guilty men? If the answer is no, then perhaps it's right that some things you refer to not be done. If, however, you can only justify the sacrifice of somebody you don't know so they can remain dehumanized, then perhaps your cause is too weak to merit that sacrifice.

Sacrificial lambs tend not to enjoy their jobs and are underappreciated as in not appreciated at all. I don't sacrifice myself or my loved ones unless it is absolutely life and death for me and or them. That is the only time to make a sacrifice. A hundred guilty men. Whoopty do. Just now a hundred known fools if they try their crap my family who would know them and be prepared for them. This is one of the reasons the police should seek to do their jobs absolutely by the book and be absolutely above reproach and seek to arrest and charge only on a case that is completely warranted with a very little gray area. Dragging people who are marginal or minor in is foolish and clogs up the system. In reality, most things people are charged with are minor and stupid, and our system is not equipped to handle it. Stop charging and making laws for stupid minor crap and let the people handle it amongst themselves and leave the courts for the real stuff, like murder rape etc and only bring those in when you have a locked tight case.
 
Sacrificial lambs tend not to enjoy their jobs and are underappreciated as in not appreciated at all. I don't sacrifice myself or my loved ones unless it is absolutely life and death for me and or them. That is the only time to make a sacrifice. A hundred guilty men. Whoopty do. Just now a hundred known fools if they try their crap my family who would know them and be prepared for them. This is one of the reasons the police should seek to do their jobs absolutely by the book and be absolutely above reproach and seek to arrest and charge only on a case that is completely warranted with a very little gray area. Dragging people who are marginal or minor in is foolish and clogs up the system. In reality, most things people are charged with are minor and stupid, and our system is not equipped to handle it. Stop charging and making laws for stupid minor crap and let the people handle it amongst themselves and leave the courts for the real stuff, like murder rape etc and only bring those in when you have a locked tight case.

The problem with your logic is that it requires the dehumanization of groups of people at all steps of the process except where your family is involved, at which point your belief falls apart. This removes authority from your belief.
 
It's a question of sacrifice: do you or don't you believe that a genuine sacrifice, of yourself or a loved one, is worth the containment of a hundred guilty men? If the answer is no, then perhaps it's right that some things you refer to not be done. If, however, you can only justify the sacrifice of somebody you don't know so they can remain dehumanized, then perhaps your cause is too weak to merit that sacrifice.

Edit: *to merit the guilty people's imprisonment*

Derp.
 
The correct question is also: Would you being a innocent man want to be one of the victims of those 100 guilty men who were set free? Because we all don't want to go to prison for a crime we didn't commit. But we also don't want to be the victims of violent criminals.

Your post contains a glaring contradiction. On one hand you emotionalize the potential innocent victims of any of the 100 guilty men set free, yet are fine with condemning innocent people to prison in order to keep those guilty men imprisoned. This contradiction reveals that your priorities are not, in fact, with the lives of innocent people, and more with the abstract principle of keeping guilty people imprisoned.
 
It's a question of sacrifice: do you or don't you believe that a genuine sacrifice, of yourself or a loved one, is worth the containment of a hundred guilty men? If the answer is no, then perhaps it's right that some things you refer to not be done. If, however, you can only justify the sacrifice of somebody you don't know so they can remain dehumanized, then perhaps your cause is too weak to merit that sacrifice.

The point I keep trying to make is that my (or whoever's) guilt is absolutely irrelevant and remains the same whether I'm pure as the wind driven snow or guilty as hell, which is, again why the question in a criminal trial the jury has to answer is not, "Would you, yourself, be willing to go to prison for this offense?"

As far as my position being weak, at least I didn't have to rephrase the question to feel better about my answer. Do you have the fortitude to throw out all criminal cases from here on out to be sure nobody innocent is ever convicted again?
 
The point I keep trying to make is that my (or whoever's) guilt is absolutely irrelevant and remains the same whether I'm pure as the wind driven snow or guilty as hell, which is, again why the question in a criminal trial the jury has to answer is not, "Would you, yourself, be willing to go to prison for this offense?"

As far as my position being weak, at least I didn't have to rephrase the question to feel better about my answer. Do you have the fortitude to throw out all criminal cases from here on out to be sure nobody innocent is ever convicted again?

You're forgetting that the premise of the question is that it is known that the imprisoned innocent person is in fact...innocent. If we accept this to be true, then we're free to address larger moral questions. You seem to want to neutralize my posts by moving the goalposts to a trial premise in which a person is an alleged suspect rather than a known innocent. At that point, perhaps you'd like to cancel this thread and start a new one: "Should we free all suspects in the potential that they're innocent?"
 
The problem with your logic is that it requires the dehumanization of groups of people at all steps of the process except where your family is involved, at which point your belief falls apart. This removes authority from your belief.

Actually, it doesn't because, in reality, I don't know you, you are just a widget. The truth hurts. Just like you don't know me, and I am a widget to you. If you read about me in the paper I am nothing more than a passing thing a point of note, if even that. Caring for ALL of humanity is foolish. One person cannot. One person can for those they know, and espouse principles which benefits those they know as well as society at large. We as individuals have mutual needs and requirements, society is an attempt to meet as many of them as possible for as many individuals as possible to prevent as much strife as possible. As you know societies are NOT perfect.
 
This is philosophical nonsense that holds no practicality.

You don't free 100 criminals into society and hope for the best just because one man might have to bite the bullet. What you do is make sure that everyone is guilty, which is the point of our judicial, jury, and repeal system. It is from that philosophical ideology that our system was born in the first place.
 
Actually, it doesn't because, in reality, I don't know you, you are just a widget. The truth hurts. Just like you don't know me, and I am a widget to you. If you read about me in the paper I am nothing more than a passing thing a point of note, if even that. Caring for ALL of humanity is foolish. One person cannot. One person can for those they know, and espouse principles which benefits those they know as well as society at large. We as individuals have mutual needs and requirements, society is an attempt to meet as many of them as possible for as many individuals as possible to prevent as much strife as possible. As you know societies are NOT perfect.

And you add to that imperfection by being willing to send the innocent to jail, but only when that innocent person is somebody you don't know. It reminds me of the saying, "Have you ever noticed that the person who says 'That's the way the ball bounces' is usually the one who drops it?"
 
This is philosophical nonsense that holds no practicality.

You don't free 100 criminals into society and hope for the best just because one man might have to bite the bullet. What you do is make sure that everyone is guilty, which is the point of our judicial, jury, and repeal system.

It should be clear that the premise of the question is that it is a given that the innocent person is, in fact, innocent.
 
This is philosophical nonsense that holds no practicality.

You don't free 100 criminals into society and hope for the best just because one man might have to bite the bullet. What you do is make sure that everyone is guilty, which is the point of our judicial, jury, and repeal system. It is from that philosophical ideology that our system was born in the first place.

See: The relationship of the Trolley Problem to the Transplant Problem. How you answer two questions that are inherently equal in nature is illustrative of your moral perception. It is most certainly not philosophical nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Transplant
 
It should be clear that the premise of the question is that it is a given that the innocent person is, in fact, innocent.

But if that is a given, then that person would go free.

The 100 criminals would remain where they belong.
 
But if that is a given, then that person would go free.

The 100 criminals would remain where they belong.

The other given is that there must be a trade-off. If you avoid the trade-off then you avoid addressing the moral dilemma. Captain Kirk was eventually forced to confront this dilemma after patting himself on the back repeatedly for running away from it.

Edit: tradeoff wasn't the right word. What is given is in the OP is that a hundred guilty men must be imprisoned along with the one man known to be innocent, or you must free the hundred guilty men if you are to keep the man known to be innocent out of prison.
 
Last edited:
And you add to that imperfection by being willing to send the innocent to jail, but only when that innocent person is somebody you don't know. It reminds me of the saying, "Have you ever noticed that the person who says 'That's the way the ball bounces' is usually the one who drops it?"

Where the hell did you get that I want to send the innocent to jail? Are you reading what I am writing? Because something does not compute. I want to make sure that anyone who goes to trial, that first before it even gets that far that the case was handled correctly and properly and NO cutting of corners all the I's dotted and the T's crossed and the case is rock solid like a 99% case of conviction by any reasonable and normal jury. If not it the case doesn't go to trial and the prosecutors don't play fast and loose with the law. I have had experience with that **** being the target of fast and loose. It gets expensive quick defending yourself not to mention is a time sink.
 
Where the hell did you get that I want to send the innocent to jail? Are you reading what I am writing? Because something does not compute. I want to make sure that anyone who goes to trial, that first before it even gets that far that the case was handled correctly and properly and NO cutting of corners all the I's dotted and the T's crossed and the case is rock solid like a 99% case of conviction by any reasonable and normal jury. If not it the case doesn't go to trial and the prosecutors don't play fast and loose with the law. I have had experience with that **** being the target of fast and loose. It gets expensive quick defending yourself not to mention is a time sink.

You've forgotten the content of the OP.

Given #1) A hundred men are guilty
Given #2) One man is innocent
Given #3) You can imprison the hundred guilty men but only if the innocent man is sent to prison as well.
 
You've forgotten the content of the OP.

Given #1) A hundred men are guilty
Given #2) One man is innocent
Given #3) You can imprison the hundred guilty men but only if the innocent man is sent to prison as well.


They ALL go free. Duh. 101 free people.
 
See: The relationship of the Trolley Problem to the Transplant Problem. How you answer two questions that are inherently equal in nature is illustrative of your moral perception. It is most certainly not philosophical nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Transplant

Of course it is. Especially now that I see you are using the Trolley "Problem." It is not a problem. It is purely philosophical and a simple moral exercise that is not based in practicality. And practicality dictates that you must choose the lesser. The only "problem" is that you must deal with it.

There are many analogies for the Trolley "Problem." Generally, war is a great one. One does not refuse to go to war against Hitler or Hirohito on the grounds that civilians might [will] be killed. One does not choose not to attack into IS because a civilian might get in the way. Likewise, one does not refuse to have a prison system on the grounds that one individual may be wrongfully incarcerated.

Practicality demands that you make the decision that is least harmful to society, especially if one must make a decision. And in the Trolley "Problem," you run over the one instead of the five. It's simple math and the only "problem" is a personal moral one.
 
Honest history doesnt save anybody or anything from judgment. But it judges within the culture, conditions, and circumstances of those who were living their history in their time, not ours.

Not a very effective defense. You're standing pretty firmly to a subjective position as if it were absolutely true. Not sure why you're doing that when there clearly seems to be some common ground between our positions. :shrug:

And returning to the topic of the thread, the question in the OP must be answered honestly within the context of the conditions and circumstances of our time. And I can envision circumstances in which the most honorable and necessary thing to do is to arrest the innocent man rather than allow 100 others to do their worst without restraint.

In theory that sounds like such a strong advancement of liberty. In practice it means that you've just let a hundred murderers loose.

Personally I'd set the threshold closer to 20-to-1. It preserves innocent-until-proven-guilty in criminal courts while not creating so many Type II errors.
 
Of course it is. Especially now that I see you are using the Trolley "Problem." It is not a problem. It is purely philosophical and a simple moral exercise that is not based in practicality. And practicality dictates that you must choose the lesser. The only "problem" is that you must deal with it.

There are many analogies for the Trolley "Problem." Generally, war is a great one. One does not refuse to go to war against Hitler or Hirohito on the grounds that civilians might [will] be killed. One does not choose not to attack into IS because a civilian might get in the way. Likewise, one does not refuse to have a prison system on the grounds that one individual may be wrongfully incarcerated.

Practicality demands that you make the decision that is least harmful to society, especially if one must make a decision. And in the Trolley "Problem," you run over the one instead of the five. It's simple math and the only "problem" is a personal moral one.

Before I respond, how did you answer the Transplant Problem?
 
This is philosophical nonsense that holds no practicality.

You don't free 100 criminals into society and hope for the best just because one man might have to bite the bullet. What you do is make sure that everyone is guilty, which is the point of our judicial, jury, and repeal system. It is from that philosophical ideology that our system was born in the first place.

Forgive my inner grammar Nazi for pointing out that it's an appeal (or appellate, more accurately) system.
 
Wow. Your question just made me very introspective. It got me thinking about this in a new, and uncomfortable way.

I have always said that I believe it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be imprisoned. But I must be lying to myself when I say that. Here is why. We know for a fact that innocent people do get sent to prison for crimes they didn’t commit and are in there right now. And yet almost nobody, including me, is in favor of releasing all prisoners and doing away with prisons.

I think it is possible, even probable, that the percentage of innocent people in prison at this very moment is at least 1%. Maybe not much more, but even if it is exactly 1%, then those of us saying we think it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be imprisoned are probably lying to ourselves. After all, those of us saying that would likely be opposed to shutting down all the prisons and blindly releasing everyone tomorrow. Maybe morally it is better to make that sacrifice so that 1% (same as 1 in 100) could go free, but in practice we aren’t willing to live with the negative consequences. Despite what we tell ourselves, in practice we would rather know for certain that innocent people are currently sitting in prison than accept the increased possibility of being victims of the crimes that would undoubtedly be committed by many of those guilty prisoners if released.

So we lie to ourselves and make ourselves feel like just people by quoting that famous sentence. And I think the lie succeeds because we don’t know who those innocent people are currently suffering in confinement. We don’t have a face with which to associate the injustice. So it remains abstract. I suppose we could also find comfort in trying to convince ourselves that the percent of innocent people currently in prison is less than 1%. But I am having trouble convincing myself of that.

We’ll see if this still makes sense to me in the morning but for now I am thinking two things:

1. That was a good question you asked. Thanks for the mental exercise.

And

2. This is some good weed.

I very much appreciated this post. IMO, if more people were willing to set aside the high sounding platitudes and be brutally intellectually honest when we are evaluating one of these controversial issues, we would have a much better society.

I do NOT want this thread to be a discussion on racism--there are infinite threads out there for that discussion--but it is like it being popular to say that racism cannot be tolerated and anybody expressing a racist thought should be fired, not elected, thrown out of office, yadda yadda. But that does not allow the person who has experienced only bad things related to a particular group to fear, resent, distance himself/herself from that group. We can teach and/or show the person that the fear, resentment, etc. is not warranted with others who are not part of that particular group, but we can also understand the fear, resentment, etc. and know that he or she is not evil because it exists.

I do NOT want this thread to be a discussion on charity or the greedy rich--there are threads out there to discuss that--but when we scorn and criticize the rich man for not giving away more of his wealth to the needy when in fact, how much of our much smaller wealth do we use for things we don't need or have to have rather than give that money to the needy, are we being intellectually honest about that?

And then we have the thread topic. And you are absolutely right that I would guess NONE of us except for the certifiably nuts would want us to empty the prisons because it is almost certain that one or more convicts have been wrongly accused and wrongly convicted and incarcerated. So the platitude that we would rather a hundred guilty go free than have one innocent wrongly incarcerated falls apart as intellectually honest right there.
 
Not a very effective defense. You're standing pretty firmly to a subjective position as if it were absolutely true. Not sure why you're doing that when there clearly seems to be some common ground between our positions. :shrug:



In theory that sounds like such a strong advancement of liberty. In practice it means that you've just let a hundred murderers loose.

Personally I'd set the threshold closer to 20-to-1. It preserves innocent-until-proven-guilty in criminal courts while not creating so many Type II errors.

I stick to my 'subjective opinion' as you characterize it, because there is nothing subjective about it. And you were the one who challenged my opinion about that, and I did I believe competently defended my opinion. So sue me.

We could as easily ask why you choose to interject personal criticism of me into what should be an objective topic.

So returning to the objective topic. . .if we quantify it with any kind of number, why not make the ratio one to one?

Is it better to allow the serial rapist or serial killer go free than have an innocent man go to jail?

How would the victims and the victims' loved ones of the serial rapist or killer answer that question?

The victims have no way to appeal what happens to them. The innocent guy does have means to appeal and prove his innocence.
 
Back
Top Bottom