Punish the Innocent or free the Guilty?

This is a pretty normal philosophy question.


What's better? To allow the guilty to go free or to in prison the innocent?



Here's the senerio. No trying to find a way to figure out "who done it". This is a hypothetical. Please stick to the premiss.





8 guys rob a bank killing all the bank employees and customers ( let's say 20 people) . They make a run for it, but don't get far before being apprehended by police, but there's a problem. 2 completely innocent people were in the same room where the bank robbers were apprehended. No one in the room has an alibi and everyone swears they are one of the 2 innocents.

So the police are left with 2 options. Let 8 mass murderers go free. Or in prison 2 innocents for life.




What do y'all think the correct moral answer is? Y'all play judge, jury and executioner. Would you let them all walk or throw innocents in jail for life?


What if your child was one of the 2 innocents? Would you make the same call.


What if your child was a victim from the bank?

There are no hypothetical security cameras in this hypothetical bank? WTH?

But seriously... If I have to stick with what you have said, I say they all go free. There was no violence committed and no loss of life. While the guilty deserve punishment, our legal system is supposed to prevent innocent people from going to jail. That doesn't always work and is a good reason a lot of people aren't for the death penalty.

No cameras though?

ETA - I missed the killing of patrons even after 3 readings. In the interest of fairness and not changing my post like I didn't make a mistake, I must still state that all walk free. If I were one of the people that got pinned for a crime like this... I would want fairness and my justice system to work like it is supposed to. They all walk. As unfair as it seems it is even more unfair to jail 2 innocents for life.

But in all fairness... if there had been hypothetical cameras it would have saved a hypothetical butt load of problems. Damned hypothetical lazy workers.

That is a good question i honestly dont know what i would do because like you said as a parent of the innocent how do justify letting the guilty go but at the same time that means your son/daughter goes to jail for along time. Im going to give the b.s answer and say that i only hope the police could see that my son/daughter was really innocent. Other than that man its a really hard moral call. Good post +1. I hope this thread has a good conversation about this topic i will follow it.

originally posted by: ArtemisE


This is a pretty normal philosophy question.


What's better? To allow the guilty to go free or to in prison the innocent?



Here's the senerio. No trying to find a way to figure out "who done it". This is a hypothetical. Please stick to the premiss.





8 guys rob a bank killing all the bank employees and customers ( let's say 20 people) . They make a run for it, but don't get far before being apprehended by police, but there's a problem. 2 completely innocent people were in the same room where the bank robbers were apprehended. No one in the room has an alibi and everyone swears they are one of the 2 innocents.

So the police are left with 2 options. Let 8 mass murderers go free. Or in prison 2 innocents for life.

There is literally ZERO evidence to collect here? Fingerprints, security cameras, witness testimony, and all are lacking? Just testimony from the people in the building? So there isn't a case to charge them. They go free. That's how our justice system works. I'm also not going to pretend this is a kangaroo court and we have their guilt predetermined because of the way you told the story.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe
I agree somewhat because in this hypothetical situation 20 people were killed so do you let everyone go even if you know their are mass murders among them? Lets just pretend a bank didnt have cameras or the robbers jammed them(this being all hypothetical).

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Your post is valid but lets just play along with the facts we were given.

a reply to: ArtemisE


Not enough info here to make a decision. Bad case for the question as well.

originally posted by: LibertyPD32
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Your post is valid but lets just play along with the facts we were given.

No, I will not partake in a kangaroo court. There is no case. This hypothetical situation, if it actually occurred, would result in the people going free.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Actually I said they killed 20 people. :p


But I actually agree. I think it's worse to jail an innocent then free some one guilty. I think the robbers will commit other crimes and be jailed anyway.

originally posted by: LibertyPD32
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe
I agree somewhat because in this hypothetical situation 20 people were killed so do you let everyone go even if you know their are mass murders among them? Lets just pretend a bank didnt have cameras or the robbers jammed them(this being all hypothetical).

I actually read your post 3 times and am not sure how I missed that. I will have to edit. Geez. Sorry about that.

My answer would still have to stand. Empathy comes into play here. If I were one of the two innocents I would not want to be imprisoned for life for something I didn't do.

As bad as it would suck... They all walk.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Work out what ever evidence senerio works for you lol. That's not the point.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Work out what ever evidence senerio works for you lol. That's not the point.

Ok. The evidence exists to try each person individually so based on that the two innocent people would go free unless the DA is corrupt and hides evidence to get convictions for everytone.

Would you, as an innocent person, be happy to rot in a cell for the rest of your life as long as it meant other guilty people would be rotting in there with you?

We can look at this by the numbers as well.

Despite what television and police PR personnel say criminals are not generally likely to be caught.

Clearance Rates

40% of murders go unsolved
60% of rapes go unsolved
70% of robberies go unsolved
90% of burglaries and auto thefts go unsolved

Now you know that the chances of being caught are this slim does that you, being innocent, more or less satisfied with sitting in a cell?

Now bring in recidivism rates:

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

So these offenders are very likely to offend again. Should you be locked up with uncertainty when the chances are fairly high that the real guilty party will just get caught another time?

But that's knowingly letting a repeat offender out to harm again, right?

Maybe.

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.

Hmmm... looks like the real dangerous ones, rapists and murderers, are least likely to repeat their offense.

So would you sit in jail to keep a one-of killer who most likely never do it again locked up?
Would you sit in jail to keep a car thief who most likely will steal again from stealing?

Given how many crimes go unsolved and how likely violent offenders are to do it again I would not waste my life locked up to accomplish essentially nothing for society.

The real fault of the question posed is in assuming being locked up is accomplishing anything for anyone so to be locked up is a simple waste on par with being randomly bludgeoned to death on a street corner. Does nothing for anyone.

a reply to: Krazysh0t And i really do see what your saying because in the real world this case would never be like this but i was just trying to get people to to plat along. Like the poster said "please follow the premiss". I was only trying to get people to dive into morals of a fake situation. I respect your stand point beacouse if this were a real case id be saying some people are going free.

S&F!

Without any other evidence to bear in the case ... I as a juror would not convict any of them and they must be set free on the basis of reasonable doubt.

However if I was evil I would imprison them all together, 8 to a single highly bugged cell for 1 year, and let natural justice and game theory work it all out as that would give the falsely imprisoned persons an opportunity to literally get their hands on those responsible for their predicament and that may encourage the real perpetrators to be more forthcoming with say a confession, upon which one is removed from the cell and given a longer sentence.

Just how they arrange themselves to sleep would be a very big tell as would you sleep with your back towards two potential threats!

a reply to: DietJoke

That's actually pretty smart. How many warrants are out for your arrest currently?

Teasing of course.

a reply to: DietJoke

Common man I appriciate the thought you put in, but that's not the point. You have 2 options. Set everyone free. Or jail all for life. This is the no win senerio from Star Trek ( kobiashi muru?) You have to screw someone.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

No I am saying that your argument is flawed when thought about rationally. First you provide a scenario that is supposed to make us angry and emotional. 20 people dead and a bank robbed. Then you give us an either or situation where either they are all guilty or all innocent and expect us to judge and convict based on our knowledge that 4/5 of the people in the room that these people were arrested in are guilty. This isn't enough information to adequately determine the guilt of a person. The only thing left is to convict based on emotion. But I don't make decisions based on emotion, it clouds the judgment. I look at the evidence. If the evidence is lacking to convict these people, individually, they go free.

This is why your argument is flawed. You are trying to make us feel bad about letting 8 people go free who killed 20 people and robbed a bank or make us feel bad for punishing 2 innocent people. But if you separate emotion from the argument, the answer is obvious.

You have a gang of thugs willing to murder people, and two guys hanging out with them......
Parents should teach their children to choose their friends wisely, lest they be found 'guilty by association'.
As a jury member, I would weigh the evidence presented. Were any of the people on trial contributing members of society, or did they all have shady past records?
If two people were leading productive lives, it would sway my decision. If none of them were, I'd tend to think society would be better protected without them being free.