which is worse - punishing the innocent, or letting the guilty go free_ [archive] - straight dope...

20/3/2015 Which is worse - punishing the innocent, or letting the guilty go free? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-133945.html 1/6

gouda

gouda

december

Apos

wring

pldennison

PDA

Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates > Which is worse - punishing the innocent, or lettingthe guilty go free?

View Full Version : Which is worse - punishing the innocent, or letting the guilty gofree?

09-04-2002, 11:04 AM

Which is worse - punishing the innocent, or letting the guilty go free?

Its not a perfect world. Innocents do go to jail, and perpetrators of crimes do end up going scot free(incidentally, why "scot free"?). Its pointless debating how or why it happens, because sometimes the law canbe interpreted only that far. Or maybe sometimes, the lawyers are just that smart.

Anyway, what I'd like to know is: which one is the worse evil?

I personally believe that punishing the innocent is the worst that you can do. But at the same time, I alsothink that allowing the guilty to go free, whatever the circumstances, only encourages them to carry on doingwhatever it is they did, and perhaps go a few steps further.

Conversely, it could very well scare them into living out the rest of their lives decently. But I tend towardspunishing innocents as being worse. What say the Teeming Millions?

09-04-2002, 11:06 AM

oops... forgot about the title showing up anyways...

09-04-2002, 11:53 AM

It depends on -- whether the guilty continue to commit crimes-- to what degree punishing the guilty deters crime

I'd say, it's better to punish a single innocent individual than to let a murderer go free, if that murderersubsequently kills several other innocent indivuduals.

This feels like an odd principle. One problem is that at the time of trial, it's unknown what crimes thedefendant might commit in the future. And, the deterence value of punishment is also speculative.

09-04-2002, 12:06 PM

Much much worse to send an innocent man to jail. That is a continuing day to day injustice perpetrated bodilyon a person. A guilty man being free may bother our sensibilities for retribution, and if they are a continuingdanger is certainly potentially a bad thing. But unless the guilty man is simply getting of to continue in hiscriminal enterprises, or at least very likely to commit violent acts again, it just doesn't compare to depriving aman of his freedom without any hint of legitimate reason.

09-04-2002, 12:06 PM

The bald face truth is that quite a few 'guilty' people go free absolutely every single day. Many crimes areunsolved. Some are even unreported (a missing person may indeed be a murder case for example. andfrankly I don't know of anyone who has called to report to the police "hey, I'm in possession of controlledsubstances....")

It is far more repugnant to me that an innocent would be punished.

We are not able to punish all of the guilty. That will never, ever be able to happen.

We can however, do our damndest to insure that we do not punish the innocent, and I believe that we mustdo that.

09-04-2002, 12:21 PM



SuaSponte

Giraffe

Palo Verde

gouda

Apos

photopat

Originally posted by december I'd say, it's better to punish a single innocent individual than to let a murderer go free, if that murderersubsequently kills several other innocent indivuduals.

If you punish a single innocent individual, then by definition, you've already let the guilty party go free. Onlynow you've compounded the error by ausing an innocent to suffer.

09-04-2002, 12:49 PM

Thank you, pld. The OP presents a false choice - if one punishes the innocent, one is, by definition, letting theguilty go. Conversely, if one lets the guilty go, one is either (a) punishing the innocent or (b) not punishinganyone at all.

Sua

09-04-2002, 01:02 PM

Punishing the innocent is far worse. Discovering who commited a crime is a difficult task. Right now there ispressure on district attorneys and police to "solve" crimes by getting someone convicted for them as quicklyas possible. As mentioned, this often allows both the true guilty party to go free while robbing another personof their freedom or even their life. I've been reading about several recent cases of DNA evidenceunequivocally exonerating someone who was convicted for a crime on pretty flimsy evidence. In severalcases, police extracted confessions from the person after long interrogations.

We need to accept that it is not always possible to discover who commited every crime. By demanding theimpossible of law enforcement, we only make things worse.

09-04-2002, 01:04 PM

Sua,

Unfortunately not necessarily. Check out this CNN story.http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/04/toobin.king.trial.otsc/index.html

2 people are being tried for the same crime. In this case, if one did it, it means the other didn't. Both trialsare being help (almost) simultaneously. It's quite possible both will be convicted.

Very messed up.

09-04-2002, 01:08 PM

decemeber wroteI'd say, it's better to punish a single innocent individual than to let a murderer go free, if that murderersubsequently kills several other innocent indivuduals December, taking the example of your murderer allowed to walk free, are there any studies which show thatsuch people actually go ahead and continue in their murderous ways, perhaps emboldened by their escapefrom the law? If not, how can you assume that all such criminals will walk out of the courtroom and continuedoing whatever the hell he/she please? Wouldn't it then be worse to have an innocent person convicted of acrime he or she didn't commit? This action could conceivably result in the innocent chap turning criminal oncehe completes his sentence.

Sua, punishing the innocent doesn't necessarily imply letting the guilty go free - the guilty one may neverhave been under trial, e.g. a person being set-up by an unknown. If a good case is presented, the innocentone may be convicted without the guilty one ever coming into the picture, i.e. no scope for "letting him go".Same goes for (a) of our second point. I agree with (b) though.

09-04-2002, 01:15 PM

I think Sua meant "letting him go" as in: he is as free to go as any guilty person who never gets caught.

09-04-2002, 02:24 PM

This argument has come up before. I still maintain that it's better to let a person go free because there'sreasonable doubt of guilt rather than imprison somebody who "might have" committed a crime.



Uncle Toby

Soup_du_jour

Seraphim

SuaSponte

Palo Verde

ElJeffe

09-04-2002, 02:48 PM

IMHO They are both equally bad, injustice is injustice. What matters is why it happened.

If an innocent person is punished because the powers knew he was innocent or that evidence against himwas insufficient and went ahead anyway the powers deserve severe punishment indeed, though this rarelyhappens. If it was incompetence or negligence they deserve to lose their job and never be given public trustagain. If it was an honest mistake, then its an accident like any other on one is to blame. You shouldnt shutdown justice just because people are human and make mistakes. That would be the greatest crime of all.

09-04-2002, 02:57 PM

No, I don't think that it has to be a false dilemna.

You're on a jury, and you are borderline on whether or not the person commited the crime. Of course, youwould like to be correct about it, as everyone would.

The question is, would you rather send the person to jail with the risk that the person is completely innocent,and you are punishing an innocent. Or, would you release the person, possibly letting someone off the hookto possibly kill again, and it would be partially your fault if someone else got arreseted and thrown in jail forthe same crime.

I interperet the OP not as someone putting a gun to your head and giving you a choice between releasingHannibal Lecter or lobbing Mother Teresa in jail.

But that's just my interperetation. I might be completely off base. I would tend to let the guilty go free than tojail the innocent.

09-04-2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by pldennison

If you punish a single innocent individual, then by definition, you've already let the guilty party go free. Onlynow you've compounded the error by ausing an innocent to suffer.

Not necessarily. Its possible to punish the innocent for a crime that never happened. I remember readingabout two brothers who had been convicted of murdering their father and sentenced to hang. They werepardoned when the father suddenly turned up, alive and well. No guilty party freed, because there never wasa crime in the first place.

09-04-2002, 03:50 PM

autz, that case is indeed an abomination. The worst part is that this travesty is not only being permitted bythe judges, but actually abetted. There has been a verdict in the first trial; if that verdict is "guilty," don't youthink that establishes reasonable doubt in the second trial? But the verdict in the first trial is being sealed.There's a phrase for that - suppression of exculpatory evidence.

Sua

09-04-2002, 04:02 PM

Sua,

Exactly. What are those judges thinking? Will this be overturned on appeal?

09-04-2002, 07:27 PM

I think that the answer to the OP depends on a lot of things. First, of course, is the nature of the crime. Is itbetter to let a shoplifter go free, rather than send an innocent to jail? Sure. Shoplifting isn't that bad a crime.Murder or rape are different. So let's say that we're talking a murder here. First of all, I think that, generallyspeaking, it is better to let one murderer go free than to jail one innocent. In some cases, that may vary.Consider the OJ case. Everyone "knows" OJ was guilty. I'm pretty sure he did it, too. So let's pretend he*did* do it, and got off. Is he really likely to kill again? Probably not. The first time, not to justify it, was afluke - a crime of passion. He's not going around murdering people and stealing their jewels, or anything. Theworst thing that's happened as a result of his not going to prison is that Anna Nicole and her beau are leftsans justice. Tragic, yes, but not fatally so (no pun intended). If OJ *had* gone to prison, and he was



Bricker

AHunter3

gouda

SuaSponte

innocent, though, then we would have subjected an innocent man to years of psychological and likely physicalpunishment for no reason. Certainly, it would be better to err on the side of his being innocent here.

Now what about someone who's a serial killer? They killed before, they're probably going to kill again. If youlet the guilty go in this case, there's a good chance others will die - maybe lots of others. In this case, it maybe a good idea to err on the side of a guilty verdict.

Now what about the oft-cited claim "It's worse to jail an innocent than to let 100/1000/1 million/whatever mengo free"? I think it's bull. If you let 100 murderers go free, and they kill 100 more people, is that really worsethan jailing someone innocent? Is it worse than executing someone innocent? Sorry, I don't think so. Ask thefamilies of the 100 victims - I'm sure they'll disagree, as well. What about the damage done to the public'sview of the justice system if we punish the innocent? Well, that's a good point. But I don't think the publicbeing skeptical of the justice system because it occasionally jails innocents is any better than skepticism dueto the justice system repeatedly letting the guilty get off. You can argue "relative justice" if you'd like, butthat's a pretty nebulous concept.

As far as actual studies about the deterence value of punishment, I don't know about punishment in general,but last year a trio of researchers at Emory university conducted a study on the deterence value of capitalpunishment in particular. It concluded that each person executed saved between 8 and 28 lives, with a bestestimate of about 18 per execution. Ian Murray summarizes the report here:

http://www.stats.org/statswork/execution.htm

Jeff

09-04-2002, 08:34 PM

The guilty verdict against Chavis is not exculpatory evidence in the sense contemplated by Brady. Nor are theprosecutors withholding it from the defense, which is the wrong that Brady addresses. Instead, the judge hasruled the defense cannot present it. The fact that one jury found certain facts to be true is not relevant to thesecond jury's determination.

However, I believe the prosecution should be forbidden from this tactic under the doctrine of equitableestoppel.

- Rick

09-04-2002, 08:49 PM

Whatever happened to the poster with the screenname "God"? I'd like God to come in here andpostVengeance is mine

In all seriousness, no one ever gets away with evil. The very nature of evil is such that the person whoperpetrates it suffers the consequences. (It is unfortunate that they spread suffering to innocent people in theprocess, but they don't "get away with it").

I don't even consider the issue debatable.

09-05-2002, 01:48 AM

In all seriousness, no one ever gets away with evil. The very nature of evil is such that the person whoperpetrates it suffers the consequences I find that hard to believe (I'd like to believe it though, because then this world would probably be a muchnicer place to live in). Aside from the fact that there is no way of proving that every evil-doer somehowsuffers the consequenses of his actions, who is to say that these consequenses in any way account or makeup for the extent of the evil act (as opposed to being punished in a court of law)?

09-05-2002, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by ElJeffe Now what about someone who's a serial killer? They killed before, they're probably going to kill again. If youlet the guilty go in this case, there's a good chance others will die - maybe lots of others. In this case, it maybe a good idea to err on the side of a guilty verdict.

Um, how exactly does "erring on the side of a guilty verdict" - that is, putting an innocent person in jail - saveone single life? The serial killer will still be out there.



wring

lee

Now what about the oft-cited claim "It's worse to jail an innocent than to let 100/1000/1 million/whatever mengo free"? I think it's bull. If you let 100 murderers go free, and they kill 100 more people, is that really worsethan jailing someone innocent? Is it worse than executing someone innocent? Sorry, I don't think so. Ask thefamilies of the 100 victims - I'm sure they'll disagree, as well.

This is my candidate for worst SDMB cliche - the "walk a mile in the shoes of [X]" argument. Ohmigod, peoplewill be affected? I never thought of that!

But let's parse out what you have argued. If we provide protections for the defendant, IOW the "beyond areasonable doubt" requirement for guilt, a hundred murderers may go free in order to spare the one innocentman. Each of those murderers may kill one more person. To avoid this possibility, it is better to change therules of the criminal justice system so that we do not go to such lengths to protect the potentially innocentdefendant - IOW abandon the "reasonable doubt" standard. First, is there any evidence that the average murderer kills more than once? I would tend to doubt it. If there were any evidence that 100 additional people will die if we spare the life of the one innocent man,you may have a point. But there is none. You have premised your position on a possibility on top of apossibility - that 100 guilty men will go free and each one of them will kill again - that seem highly remote.

Second I find it puzzling when conservatives cast aspersions on the "it is better to let 100 guilty men go freethan to punish one innocent" standard. It is a conservative statement on three grounds.[list=a]It is the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. The protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are allpremised on the concept that it is more important to protect the innocent accused than convict the guiltyaccused.It has been the basis of the American criminal justice system since the founding of the nation - indeed, frombefore the founding of the nation. It derives from English common law. Abandoning at least 250 years ofprecedent for a radical new experiment in criminal jurisprudence surely isn't a conservative position.It is the definition of the conservative position that we need to accept the consequences of our beliefs andactions.[/list=a]

To avoid double-posting, and to add other POV's to this debate, I link(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=126547&perpage=50&highlight=Blackstone&pagenumber=2) to a thread on this precise issue fromabout a month ago.

Sua

09-05-2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Bricker However, I believe the prosecution should be forbidden from this tactic under the doctrine of equitableestoppel.

- Rick

My thought is that either the prosecutor believe's the kids (current) statement or they don't.

If they believe it, then prosecuting the kids is wrong.

If they don't believe it, then putting the kids up on the witness stand in the other trial amounts to subourningperjury.

If they're not sure, they shouldn't be neither be prosecuting the kids nor putting them on the stand. MHO

09-05-2002, 04:57 PM

From a practicla view point, if you punish the innocent, then others will see that you are punishing theinnocent. They will realize that it doesn't matter if they commit a crime or not so they might as well dowhatever they like like.

Don't fall for the trap that nobody will know they are innocent, many will know just that, but their voices countfor naught in a court of law because the guilty can have others say that too, but out in the community, thevoices will matter. Also, in cases like those sited above, people can see if both are found guilty, some one isbeing punished for a crime they did not commit.

Ever see a kid who knows no matter what he does he will be punished? I've know parents who ground theirkids averyonce in a while on the principle that they must have done something. Kid's thought process seems



clairobscur

clairobscur

clairobscur

to develop something like this: Hmm, if I steal my sisters candy and decapitate her dolls, I'll be grounded. If Isit here and be bored all day and do nothing interesting, I'll be grounded. Candy tastse good, and hey, Iwonder what is in those dolls anyway!

09-05-2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Soup_du_jour

The question is, would you rather send the person to jail with the risk that the person is completely innocent,and you are punishing an innocent. Or, would you release the person, possibly letting someone off the hookto possibly kill again, and it would be partially your fault if someone else got arreseted and thrown in jail forthe same crime..

I disagree. It wouldn't be my fault *at all* if someone else is arrested. I won't be the one who will have tostate whether this other person is guilty or not. This responsability will rest on the shoulders of another juree.Similarily, I won't be responsible if the guy is actually guilty and commit another crime. It's his fullresponsability, not mine.

My responsability as a member of the jury would be totally limited to the case presented to me. And indeed, Iwould be responsible if I sent an innocent guy to jail. For this reason, in the situation you describe, I supposeI would choose to release the guy if I'm not fully convinced he's guilty.

Anyway, I would hate to have to sit in a jury...

09-05-2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by AHunter3 Whatever happened to the poster with the screenname "God"? I'd like God to come in here and post

In all seriousness, no one ever gets away with evil. The very nature of evil is such that the person whoperpetrates it suffers the consequences. (It is unfortunate that they spread suffering to innocent people in theprocess, but they don't "get away with it").

I don't even consider the issue debatable.

That should be the logical conclusion for anybody who believes in a god of justice. But how many christians(or muslims, or whoever else) do you know who states that there should be no human justice system sinceanyway, men are faillible while god isn't, evil will be eventually punished, and justice belong to god? Notmuch, I would guess.

Anyway, I'm atheist. So, I don't believe that evil will be punished in any way if we don't take care of that.

09-05-2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by ElJeffe

If you let 100 murderers go free, and they kill 100 more people, is that really worse than jailing someoneinnocent? Is it worse than executing someone innocent? Sorry, I don't think so. Ask the families of the 100victims - I'm sure they'll disagree, as well.

To get such a result, you'll have to accept looser standarts of proof. In other words sentence more innocents.So, now, what if you have to sent 100 innocents to jail or to the death row to avoid letting one seriall killer gofree from time to time? Ask the 100 innocent people sentenced and their families and I'm sure they'lldisagree with you....

vBulletin v3.8.7, Copyright 2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

which is worse - punishing the innocent, or letting the guilty go free_ [archive] - straight dope...

Documents