• 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
AlbqOwl said:
Such a hard and terrible question to answer. Would it be better to let 100 serial rapists or serial killers or murderous terrorists go free than to incarcerate one innocent man? Would the victims and/or their loved ones think that was a good trade off?

It was a decision that FDR had to make in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even knowing that 99% of the Japanese people living in the U.S. were no threat to U.S. citizens, did a take a chance on 1% of them being people instructed to sabotage our shipyards or otherwise create havoc from their advantage being in the country? Even all these many decades later, that is still a controversial decision.

So given extreme situations I can say that yes, it would be better to incarcerate the innocent and make it up to him/them later than it would be to put many other innocent people at unnecessary risk.

A better question is it better to let the guilty go free than take the chance that he or she is being wrongly accused? And even there the answer is not an easy one.
Click to expand...

yeah FDR should have been impeached and imprisoned (at least) for that travesty
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, guilty mother in law, then.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Such a hard and terrible question to answer. Would it be better to let 100 serial rapists or serial killers or murderous terrorists go free than to incarcerate one innocent man? Would the victims and/or their loved ones think that was a good trade off?

It was a decision that FDR had to make in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even knowing that 99% of the Japanese people living in the U.S. were no threat to U.S. citizens, did a take a chance on 1% of them being people instructed to sabotage our shipyards or otherwise create havoc from their advantage being in the country? Even all these many decades later, that is still a controversial decision.
Click to expand...

And by far his stupidest decision of his entire presidency. There was absolutely no reason for it.

So given extreme situations I can say that yes, it would be better to incarcerate the innocent and make it up to him/them later than it would be to put many other innocent people at unnecessary risk.

A better question is it better to let the guilty go free than take the chance that he or she is being wrongly accused? And even there the answer is not an easy one.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
First: the word you wanted was "paraphrase", not "paragraph". My OCD does not allow me to let that pass.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I meant and my iPad should have known regardless of what I actually may have typed.

Second: all the freedoms and rights in the world come with costs. That cost is frequently security. The more rights and freedoms you have, the less secure you are. While there are times that it is worth giving up a little freedom in exchange for security, it should be rare.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's not rare though, not when my dog has to be licensed by my local government simply because she exists (for example).
 
AlbqOwl said:
It was a decision that FDR had to make in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even knowing that 99% of the Japanese people living in the U.S. were no threat to U.S. citizens, did a take a chance on 1% of them being people instructed to sabotage our shipyards or otherwise create havoc from their advantage being in the country? Even all these many decades later, that is still a controversial decision.
Click to expand...

The relocation of Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II is one of the most flagrant violations of civil liberties in American history. More than two thirds of those interned were American citizens for goodness sake and half of them were children. In some cases family members were separated and put in different camps. Such despicable treatment that eventually resulted in the passing of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

Classified information was uncovered that showed that the exclusion order and incarceration were based on racism and falsehoods. In February 1980 Congress passed an act forming the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC). This commission conducted hearings in 9 cities, heard testimonies from over 750 witnesses, and examined over 10,000 documents. In 1983 the CWRIC issued its report, which concluded that military necessity was not the cause of the mass imprisonment. Rather, “the broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership” (Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians 1983, p. 18).

Acting upon the recommendations of the commission, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, and President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) signed it into law. This law required payment and apology to survivors of the incarceration caused by Executive Order 9066. Two years later President George H. W. Bush presented the first apologies along with payments of $20,000 to each of the oldest survivors.

Japanese American Incarceration facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Japanese American Incarceration
Click to expand...
 
By stating the 100-1 ratio it's too easy to get caught up and sidetracked in arbitrary numbers. But whether you agree or disagree, it does beg the question... What is an acceptable percentage/ratio?
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah FDR should have been impeached and imprisoned (at least) for that travesty
Click to expand...

What would you have done if you had been President? You are responsible for the security of the people and military installations and have no way if they are imminently targeted. You don't know who is friend and who is foe. Do you choose the politically correct thing. Or the most expedient thing under the circumstances.

Same decision President Bush had to make in the wake of 9/11. Not knowing what other terrorists were planning attacks when or where, thousands upon thousands of Americans were inconvenienced when all air craft was grounded until they could assess the risk. As it turned it, it was unnecessary. But when you don't know, you do what you can at the time.
 
Phys251 said:
And by far his stupidest decision of his entire presidency. There was absolutely no reason for it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But viewing it through the eyes of a historian, it was not unreasonable under the circumstances of that time.
 
AlbqOwl said:
What would you have done if you had been President? You are responsible for the security of the people and military installations and have no way if they are imminently targeted. You don't know who is friend and who is foe. Do you choose the politically correct thing. Or the most expedient thing under the circumstances.

Same decision President Bush had to make in the wake of 9/11. Not knowing what other terrorists were planning attacks when or where, thousands upon thousands of Americans were inconvenienced when all air craft was grounded until they could assess the risk. As it turned it, it was unnecessary. But when you don't know, you do what you can at the time.
Click to expand...

follow the constitution. there were far more german spies than Japanese spies but German Americans weren't incarcerated.
 
Serenity said:
The relocation of Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II is one of the most flagrant violations of civil liberties in American history. More than two thirds of those interned were American citizens for goodness sake and half of them were children. In some cases family members were separated and put in different camps. Such despicable treatment that eventually resulted in the passing of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.
Click to expand...

It is looking at it through the eyes of political correctness. But if you are President and you don't know who or where the enemy is, you do what you have the power to do to ensure the safety of the people and military installations that are going to be critical to defend against a deadly aggressor. At the time, I don't think the President was the least concerned about civil liberties. He was concerned about the security and safety of the country.

Bad judgment? That has been debated for more than 70 years now. But we have to see it through their eyes to fully understand.

So you have 101 guys who you know most of them are guilty of a terrible crime. You also know that probably some of them are not guilty but you don't know who is who. Do you go ahead and arrest them and sort all the out after you have secured the area? Or do you wait to figure out who is guilty knowing they will commit more terror until that can happen?

We are considering situational ethics, morality, or whatever here, but sometimes you just have to make a decision in which you know injustice will be done, but to not make the decision will be worse.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Perhaps. But viewing it through the eyes of a historian, it was not unreasonable under the circumstances of that time.
Click to expand...

Sigh, I hate that excuse, especially for events that aren't even a century old. If we took it to its logical extreme, we could justify all sorts of atrocities over the ages.
 
TurtleDude said:
follow the constitution. there were far more german spies than Japanese spies but German Americans weren't incarcerated.
Click to expand...

Yes both Germans and Italians were detained, some arrested, some incarcerated both in WWI and WWII under the 'Alien and Sedition' act. It just wasn't as visible and dramatic as the Japanese situation. Remember Japan had attacked us on our own soil. Germany had not at that time and only declared war on us because as an ally of Japan they were required to.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes both Germans and Italians were detained, some arrested, some incarcerated both in WWI and WWII under the 'Alien and Sedition' act. It just wasn't as visible and dramatic as the Japanese situation. Remember Japan had attacked us on our own soil. Germany had not at that time and only declared war on us because as an ally of Japan they were required to.
Click to expand...

there is about 30 reasons why FDR should have been impeached and that was just one of them
 
Phys251 said:
Sigh, I hate that excuse, especially for events that aren't even a century old. If we took it to its logical extreme, we could justify all sorts of atrocities over the ages.
Click to expand...

Again using modern day knowledge, culture, customs, beliefs, political correctness, etc. to judge those before us is doing very poor history. When they were having to make fast and critical decision while working essentially blind, they did not have the benefit of hindsight. Only by looking at it through their eyes can we fully understand.

That is not intended to excuse error and bad judgment or injustice or wrongs that were done in history. But it does help us understand that people can be both noble and wrong, honorable and wrong, doing the very best they can at the time and be wrong. I only hope those 100 years from now will be as thoughtful when they judge us.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is about 30 reasons why FDR should have been impeached and that was just one of them
Click to expand...

I am no fan of FDR. But I try to be brutally fair and understand the thinking, fears, and motives of those in history and also those now. That does not mean that I approve of what did or what they do, and perhaps they should be hung, but I rather believe people should be hung for crimes they actually commit instead of something they did not do. Unless I was there having the duty and responsibility to respond to an attack on U.S. soil as happened in 1941, I will not presume to condemn the President's motives. I cannot say that I would not have made the same call. Of course it was the wrong call. But who among us has never made one? To do so does not make a person evil.

And I say that as no fan of FDR on many fronts.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Again using modern day knowledge, culture, customs, beliefs, political correctness, etc. to judge those before us is doing very poor history. When they were having to make fast and critical decision while working essentially blind, they did not have the benefit of hindsight. Only by looking at it through their eyes can we fully understand.
Click to expand...

You were on to something until you threw in the politically charged term "political correctness." Whatever was left in the aftermath, the rest of your comment did not save.

That we must view what historical figures did in the context of their day and age does not justify what they did. You are choosing to conflate the two.

That is not intended to excuse error and bad judgment or injustice or wrongs that were done in history. But it does help us understand that people can be both noble and wrong, honorable and wrong, doing the very best they can at the time and be wrong. I only hope those 100 years from now will be as thoughtful when they judge us.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, historians in the 22nd century and beyond are going to have a lot to say about what the US is doing now. And the cultural context excuse won't save us.
 
Phys251 said:
You were on to something until you threw in the politically charged term "political correctness." Whatever was left in the aftermath, the rest of your comment did not save.

That we must view what historical figures did in the context of their day and age does not justify what they did. You are choosing to conflate the two.



I can assure you, historians in the 22nd century and beyond are going to have a lot to say about what the US is doing now. And the cultural context excuse won't save us.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
radcen said:
By stating the 100-1 ratio it's too easy to get caught up and sidetracked in arbitrary numbers. But whether you agree or disagree, it does beg the question... What is an acceptable percentage/ratio?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I would agree. While it is definitely unfair to that one person, on the other hand you'd be helping out 100 others.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

*ahem*

What about the OP if the thread that resulted in such a good question?
 
X Factor said:
*ahem*

What about the OP if the thread that resulted in such a good question?
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
I would go to prison to keep 100 serial killers off the streets.
 
Cardinal said:
Wrong question. The correct one is: Would you, being innocent, be willing to go to prison so that 100 guilty men didn't go free?
Click to expand...

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.
 
X Factor said:
It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly incarcerated. Do you agree or disagree? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...



I can see why some people think its a good idea that a 100 guilty men go free than for 1 innocent person to go to prison. Because no one wants to go to prison for a crime they didn't commit.I know I don't want my family, friends, people I know and me(if it was one of those cushy Norway joke of a prisons and I was broke as **** then that would be a different story) to go to prison for a crime we didn't commit. As another poster pointed out no one would advocate that we empty our prisons or ban prisons because there are innocent people currently in prison.

I can also understand why some people would think that it is bad to let a hundred guilty go free than for one innocent man to be locked up. Because you are basically asking the question "Are you okay with the 100 plus innocent people being victimized by the 100 guilty people just so 1 innocent man doesn't get locked up?". Going by the numbers that is a horrible ****en deal letting a hundred plus people being victimized by 100 criminals who were freed just so 1 innocent person doesn't go to prison.Just as we imagine how none of us would want to go to prison for a crime we didn't commit we should also imagine that none of us wants to be the victims of those 100 guilty people.

As another poster stated we are not for convicting innocent people in witch hunts again. So I want the higher standards of proof for convicting people of crimes. I don't want people convicted on just someone's word,fake evidence or rumors.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I can too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom