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.
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.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.Mahatma Gandhi
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?Originally Posted by X Factor
I would much rather see 100 guilty go free than start convicting innocent people in witch hunts again.
“When choosing the lesser of two evils, always remember, it is still an evil.”
Blackstones formulation x 10.
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
-Benjamin Franklin.
Why do we fall?
So we can learn to pick ourselves up.
Absolutely agree. We have 5 amendments in the bill of rights protecting our rights in criminal proceedings. That is done for a reason.
We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham
Dude, even if I was guilty as sin I still wouldn’t be particularly willing to go to prison. There’s a reason jury’s are instructed not to place themselves in the shoes of the defendant or victim for that matter. We’re not at our most objective when it involves us personally. This is an expression I’ve seen pretty routinely argued so your dodge is a little puzzling.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.Mahatma Gandhi
I’ll put that I don’t agree. I don’t know if the number should be 100 or not but that sounds like as good of a line as any. What if it was 1,000 or 1 million or every criminal? Is it rational to expect a perfect system or no system at all? So 100 is a good a cutoff line as any. With 99% efficiency that would be much more effective that the rest of the govt.
**** no
If you need to misrepresent your opponent's position, you don't really believe in yours, you have no integrity and as Tony Montana says, "Any man without his word is a cockroach."
Exactly, I’d rather go free as a guilty person and have 100 innocent people wrongly convicted in my place
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.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote