i just saw where this one innocent man had lived most of his adult life in prision wrongly accused and sentenced.
he didn't seem bitter, which i am sure i would have been, and he wasn't suing the state for an unGodly amount of money.
he just wanted to go on with what life he still has left to love his family and be with them.
O.o
now, that is a kind soul.
but imagine his family going on with their lives and maybe his wife had remarried or whatever.
lose most of you adult life and all the precious times with your babies and family.
i hope he is having a good, good life now.

for some reason, whenever i hear this saying, i think of the salem witch trails. so may innocent people died... the trials were not fair, there was no solid evidence or proof, atleast by today's court standards. it truly is terrible when an innocent person is convicted. (the youngest person who was given the death penalty because they were accused of witchcraft was a four year old girl.) but it depends on the severity of the punishment. if, like in the trials, the punishment is death, then it is the court's fault for not dealing with the case properly and convicting the wrong person. they sent this innocent person to their death. however, letting guilty men go free is no better. again, depending on the severity of the crime, you could be letting a hundred psychopathic murderers and serial killers go free. if this were to happen, even more innocent people would die at the hands of these criminals. so is it better to torture one person or let a hundred guilty men go free, now that i think about it, neither side is more appealing than the other. both have serious repercussions. if innocent people are repeatedly declared guilty, the people lose faith in the credibility of the court and justice system. and again if criminals go free, it gives the impression that the government is doing nothing at all to protect the innocent people. so really, after saying all that, i remain undecided...

Let the guilty stay. I wouldn't let the person suffer. No justice behind it and if we ever continued to do so more innocent people would just suffer. However in some cases maybe it would have to be done. I would hold back 100 murders if I had to. Its just one of those "depends" questions I guess.

I would say that the day we consciously make a decision to punish one innocent man in order to keep any number of guilty in jail (no matter what they did) is the day that we ourselves have become the guilty ones.

The old adage is based on the Constitutional amendment of innocent till proven guilty which in a few states is flipped to guilty until prove innocent.

People have a really bizarre thinking pattern when it comes to crime and the justice system. Some people feel that depending on the crime should we allow the guilty to go free and punish the innocent. However that's not what the adage is talking about. It's talking about a miscarry of justice.

In the 80's there was a man in Ada, Oklahoma who was accused of rape and murder was sentenced to death row based on faulty evidence and a "dream confession". The true rapist/murderer was never caught for several years until the Innocent Project took on his case and the man wrongly accused was exonerated in 1998. However the damage on his psyche and his body was just too devasting. He died in 2000. The rapist/murderer was captured and brought to justice.

So really the adage gives a position on the criminal justice system and ultimately begs the question: Why do we allow innocent people to suffer when our Constitution is against it? Why have we let our legal system turn into such a travesty? The answer is that we need to undoubtedly reform it by getting rid of the incompetent police officers, the corrupt prosecution and the negative stigma that the community portrays when someone is wrongly arrested. Just because someone is arrested doesn't mean that they did the crime. Remember in our Constitution states Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

And that is the law of the land.

I find myself surprised by the earlier posts that say—without any seeming hesitation—that the innocent man should be free, just because he's innocent. Why is it that *good* or *not guilty* is valued so much greater than *bad* or *guilty*? Looking at it from a black and white point of view, the logic is that one man's goodness is greater than one hundred criminals' badness. To me, that seems very uneven and illogical.

Many people also said that it depends on the circumstances, which I absolutely agree with, because the situation is just too vague. I think the question should then instead be looked at as: would you, under any circumstances, et cetera. And if I really was in a situation like that, where I had to make that decision, I would consider and, under certain circumstances, imprison the innocent man.

If I may quote Hot Fuzz, "It's for the greater good."

Originally Posted by Harley Q

I find myself surprised by the earlier posts that say—without any seeming hesitation—that the innocent man should be free, just because he's innocent. Why is it that *good* or *not guilty* is valued so much greater than *bad* or *guilty*? Looking at it from a black and white point of view, the logic is that one man's goodness is greater than one hundred criminals' badness. To me, that seems very uneven and illogical.

Many people also said that it depends on the circumstances, which I absolutely agree with, because the situation is just too vague. I think the question should then instead be looked at as: would you, under any circumstances, et cetera. And if I really was in a situation like that, where I had to make that decision, I would consider and, under certain circumstances, imprison the innocent man.

If I may quote Hot Fuzz, "It's for the greater good."

So what you're saying is that our Constitution is illogical and uneven? I think it's very logical, even and very black and white.

Is this some anti death penalty analogy or something?
I'm 100% pro firing squads. : D

Has nothing to do with the death penalty. It's a simple moral quandary. Would you rather see one hundred guilty criminals go free, than have one innocent man in jail?

Originally Posted by Glass

Has nothing to do with the death penalty. It's a simple moral quandary. Would you rather see one hundred guilty criminals go free, than have one innocent man in jail?

Actually in a way it does go with the death penalty. Especially in states that support like Oklahoma and Texas where hundreds of innocent people are sentenced to death room in the past 20 years :s

Hundreds? Can you list them credibly? The number is probably much lower than you think, since over fifty percent of capital crimes, even in states who support the death penalty, never even have a real suspect, much less a conviction.

Guessing you're against the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Glass

Hundreds? Can you list them credibly? The number is probably much lower than you think, since over fifty percent of capital crimes, even in states who support the death penalty, never even have a real suspect, much less a conviction.

Guessing you're against the death penalty?

The Innocence Project - Know the Cases: Browse Profiles

Whether or not I'm for or against the death penalty is irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually being for or against the death penalty would be a part of the discussion, since the innocent man might be executed. which you brought up. A good point by the way.

And that's not hundreds. And they were not sentenced at the same time. You have a list of a lot of people from the course of decades.

I'll admit that the justice system is not perfect, but many more guilty men are allowed to go free than innocent men are imprisoned.

Another problem is the double jeopardy law. If they later find evidence to clear you, you're free. Great. But if they find damning evidence and you've already been cleared, you're free, and guilty. The law is necessary to keep the government from abusing people more than they already do, but still. It is abused by criminals. Though they're criminals so. . . of course they do that.

Another point. If we are bringing execution into this, then let us assume that the innocent man would be executed, or the hundred guilty would if imprisoned. Which is right then?

Going by sheer numbers is sick, because then a person is just a thing to be sacrificed. But otherwise you have one hundred capital offenders going free. What do you do there?

Originally Posted by RavynneSidhe

Actually in a way it does go with the death penalty. Especially in states that support like Oklahoma and Texas where hundreds of innocent people are sentenced to death room in the past 20 years :s

More than just 'in a way'. :0

Honestly, I think the death penalty issue is implied in the question to begin with. :/ That's just my view, but. . .

Originally Posted by Glass

Honestly, I think the death penalty issue is implied in the question to begin with. :/ That's just my view, but. . .

Best view ever. :illgetu: