Let a thousand guilty men go to save 1 innocent person

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a hypothetical moral dilemma where an individual must choose between convicting an innocent man or releasing 1,000 guilty criminals. Participants express varied opinions on the implications of their choices, weighing the value of an individual's rights against societal safety. Many argue that the innocent man should be found not guilty to prevent the release of dangerous felons, while others contend that the risk of freeing criminals outweighs the injustice of imprisoning an innocent person. The conversation touches on themes of justice, morality, and the responsibilities of decision-making in the face of such dilemmas. Some participants challenge the premise of the scenario, questioning the logic and ethics behind the choices presented. The debate highlights the tension between individual rights and collective safety, with many asserting that a just society cannot sacrifice an innocent person, regardless of the potential consequences.

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
  • #31
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
WhiteWolf said:
lol, well, no offense, but I don't buy that. Because everytime someone steals something, they plan it to where they don't 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.
 
  • #34
And the government is their deterent. That is why I don't 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.
 
  • #35
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
13K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K