Let a thousand guilty men go to save 1 innocent person

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date

Would you find him guilty or not-guilty

  • He would be found guilty, the 1,000 felons will stay locked up

    Votes: 13 59.1%
  • He will be found not-guilty, the 1,000 felons will be released into the public

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Other (chickening out eh?)

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Total voters
    22
62
0
Loren Booda said:
Recall the politics of seduction - Free 1000 criminals to save 1 innocent man? Free 999 criminals to save 1 innocent man? Free 998 criminals to save 1 innocent man? Free 997 criminals to save 1 innocent man?...
Where do you draw the line?
I would probably draw the line at two, depending on the criminals being released. If those criminals are murderers, then I will assume they will kill again, which is the main purpose of capital punishment, or giving then life in prison. So if the line is drawn at one, then that is too small, since you are already killing an innocent man, and there is a chance that the murderer in question will feel remorseful and not kill anymore people. So I shall draw the line at 2, providing they are murderers.

Also, to that last post, people can learn to defend themselves, but that will lead to bloodshed. If you take away authority, and live in anarchy, then crime will skyrocket at an exponential level. Then you have thieves killing innocent people, people killing thieves. The bloodshed will be horrendous.

Also, this is a little off- topic, but anarchism doesnt work. It is human nature to have order, and someone, somewhere, will rise to power. Even in Somalia, they are not an anarchy, although they have 'minimal' order, war-lords control the people. Anarchism is like Communism, it only works in an idealist society.
 
310
2
WhiteWolf said:
If you take away authority, and live in anarchy, then crime will skyrocket at an exponential level. Then you have thieves killing innocent people, people killing thieves. The bloodshed will be horrendous.
The myth that deterrence actually lowers crime by any significant level is pretty much debunked from anyone in criminology or political science, ect.

So I don't really see any reason to believe that the only reason people don't kill eachother is because the government is stopping them.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
I guess I'm just a 'rule of law' freak, but I couldn't convict a man that was proven innocent, for any reason. That just goes against the principles upon which the justice system is based, and when it starts violating its own principles, you are only inviting collapse, no matter your intentions.
 
125
0
loseyourname said:
I guess I'm just a 'rule of law' freak, but I couldn't convict a man that was proven innocent, for any reason. That just goes against the principles upon which the justice system is based, and when it starts violating its own principles, you are only inviting collapse, no matter your intentions.
I agree. The original question isn't framed very well. If the innocent person is found not guilty, then he or she will be released and the 1,000 felons will stay in jail.
 
62
0
Smurf said:
The myth that deterrence actually lowers crime by any significant level is pretty much debunked from anyone in criminology or political science, ect.
So I don't really see any reason to believe that the only reason people don't kill eachother is because the government is stopping them.
lol, well, no offense, but I dont buy that. Because everytime someone steals something, they plan it to where they dont get caught for a reason. It is because they fear being caught. I am not entirely sure, but I very well might take petty stuff from stores if I was hungry one day and I wanted something to snack on, but had no money. Why I dont? It is because of the security cameras. The government is the ones that made the laws allowing security cameras to be put in place, and allowing the stores to file lawsuits against offenders.

So using this logic, I would call it controversial, not debunked. Maybe give me the other side of this issue and I could see it differently...
 
23
0
i seriosuly don't see what's really hard about the decision (perhaps this is only IMO). if you let go 1,000 criminals, they would kill even MORE innocent people.
rephrase: would you rather have more than 1 innocent person die or just 1 innocent person go to jail?
 
62
0
If it is just 1:1, then it would change the dynamics of it. That murderer may not neccessarily kill again. So most people would save the innocent man.
 
310
2
WhiteWolf said:
lol, well, no offense, but I dont buy that. Because everytime someone steals something, they plan it to where they dont get caught for a reason.
That's kind of what they're saying. When you want to commit a crime you try to find a way not to get caught, instead of just giving up and not doing it.
 
62
0
And the government is their deterent. That is why I dont buy that it is proven that the government is not an effective deterant. The government makes the laws and the punishment, thus, the government stops people from stealing and such.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
I think that smurf's claim does have the most validity of the commission of particularly violent crimes, like murder. I'm not sure what kind of statistics are out there on this, but from what I've heard, these are usually crimes of passion. Deterrence doesn't work to prevent a crime of passion; it only works to prevent well thought-out, clearly premeditated crimes.* Since these are the crimes that the death penalty is being doled out for, deterrence probably isn't having much of an effect. Of course, don't take my word for it without statistical backing. Maybe smurf can provide us with some of this, since it's his claim.

*I don't mean premeditation in the legal sense. The barrier for charging murder one is painfully low. You only have to have a minute of thought that you want to kill someone, and it can happen directly before actually doing it. I think this still qualifies as a crime of passion in the relevant sense, even if legally it is considered premeditation.
 
62
0
Murder perhaps, but this question didnt really specify murder, did it? I forget, I just thought it was just some serious crime. Since it was hypothetical, I didnt consider passion or not, but practically, I believe you are correct.
 

Related Threads for: Let a thousand guilty men go to save 1 innocent person

  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
78K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Top