Let a thousand guilty men go to save 1 innocent person

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
In summary: Society would be better off without them, and there's no need for the courts to waste time and resources trying to deal with them. Society would be better off without them, and there's no need for the courts to waste time and resources trying to deal with them.In summary, an all-powerful, all-knowing being confronts you with a choice: send 1,000 innocent men to jail, or release them and let the guilty man go. After thinking about it, you decide that society would be better off without the 1,000 men, so you choose to release them.

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
  • #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
20
Now, most people would say that they would rather have a thousand guilty men go then jail one innocent man. But would you be able to do it if you are given the choice and you must make it?

Hypothetical Situation:

You wake up one day and you're in the middle of a courtroom. An all-knowing, all-powerful being approaches you and confronts you with a situation. The man on trial is about to be found guilty but he is actually innocent. This all-powerful being then gives you a list of 1,000 guilty men who are currently in federal prisons around the country. Their charges range from drug production to murder to rape to counterfeighting. He tells you that you must decide, will this person be found guilty and the 1,000 men will remain in jail, or will this person be found not-guilty and the 1,000 men released into the public with their charges pardoned?

Oh yah, and if you don't make a decision, they are all released and the innocent man goes to jail.

Things to think about:
How important is it that you don't have to feel like you sent someone away that is innocent?
Are you willing to take the chances with the 1,000 felons being released?
Do you feel like it is your fault if these 1,000 felons do anything bad?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You say the innocent man will go to jail, not for a life term or to be executed, so I don't see letting 1,000 felons free to save some person a few months in jail anyway.

The circumstance would be different if this innocent person was to be killed for something he/she didn't do, I think. :)
 
  • #3
The saying doesn't imply your test; it's a constraint on rules of evidence and judgement.
 
  • #4
It's all all-knowing all-powerful being tellen you what to do, its obvious what the evidence points to :) Quit derailing my thread!
 
  • #5
He would be found guilty, the 1,000 felons will stay locked up
He will be found not-guilty, the 1,000 felons will be released into the public

Is this right?

Surely it should be:
He would be found guilty, the 1,000 felons will be released into the public
He will be found not-guilty, the 1,000 felons will stay locked up

Anyway,
I would send him to prison, it's likely of the 1,000 "felons" that at least one would be innocent.
 
  • #6
I whould let the him go to jail.He'll probally whould of die(I'am going to assume he knows the person who cominted the crime and is still in the public or he's one of the 1,000) if let the 1,000 mauders get out of prison; so he get's to live when he goes to prison(If he dosn't get the death penelty).
 
Last edited:
  • #7
tomfitzyuk said:
Surely it should be:
He would be found guilty, the 1,000 felons will be released into the public
He will be found not-guilty, the 1,000 felons will stay locked up

Anyway,
I would send him to prison, it's likely of the 1,000 "felons" that at least one would be innocent.

No because the choice woudl be incredibly obvious, let him be found not-guilty (because he is) and let the 1000 felons stay locked up.

And no, none of the felons are innocent, an omnipotent power tells you that they are all guilty and he is not lieing, that is the premise for this argument.
 
  • #8
I put other, which would be "Let everyone go free, and stop arresting people in the first place"
Pengwuino said:
And no, none of the felons are innocent, an omnipotent power tells you that they are all guilty and he is not lieing, that is the premise for this argument.
don't you mean omniscient?
 
  • #9
First, by what logic do you suppose my actions to vote yes or no on the life of one man would then require the courts to free 1000 ? This is a nonsense hypothetical situation, thus requires a nonsense response, which I provide.
Of course the poor man must go to jail, and shame on the all-powerful all-knowing being for letting him get into such a mess to the very end of his trial, for not bringing forth the evidence in a dream to the defense lawyer so that he could go free. I would sleep well at night knowing that 1000 "known" criminals were not free, and pray that the all-powerful being confess his sin for allowing the innocent man to be put in jail...for what on the face of it looks like motivation to test my morality for his evil non-action. Thus of course this being you refer to is clearly Lucifer, correct ?
 
  • #10
I think it was an analogy... Rade.

To do with the whole "Individual vs. Society" debate. What's more valuable, the rights of an individual, or the safety of society?
 
  • #11
If this is to be taken as a lay down of principles of the judicial system, let the fella(s) walk.
 
  • #12
I voted: "He will be found not-guilty, the 1,000 felons will be released into the public", and then we can change the system, so that these kinds of incidents don't happen again. A man's freedom is as important as 1,000,000 men's freedom - atleast for that one. :)
 
  • #13
"Can God build a mountain so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

Paucity of information is no reason for addressing a non sequitur.
 
  • #14
Loren Booda said:
"Can God build a mountain so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

Paucity of information is no reason for addressing a non sequitur.

Its a hypothetical situation, deal with it. Just because you can't handle the reality of such ideological meaningless sayings such as the one presented doesn't mean you can't share what you would actually do.
 
  • #15
Smurf said:
I think it was an analogy... Rade.
To do with the whole "Individual vs. Society" debate. What's more valuable, the rights of an individual, or the safety of society?
OK, then the answer is simple, there is no such concept as "the rights of society", rights only belong to the individual. In this case, 1000 individuals are known to be guilty and in jail, and society is very save indeed. And yes, non-guilty people get put in jail all the time, always will, that is the nature of the beast. So, yes, the poor fellow must go to jail, unless this so-called all powerful whatever brings forth new information that can set him free. I can grasp that we are dealing with an analogy, but the form of this one is nonsensical, 1000 criminals are not set free to protect the "rights of one individual". Would the US military release 1000 prisoners to save the life of one innocent US Marine held hostage ?...of course not. The dumb cluck had his time to worry about his rights, he should have spent the $$ and got OJ's lawyers.
 
  • #16
It's about dealing with some peoples view of justice damn it! It may make no sense but it's all about practical justice. Can people really live up to the philisophical/ideological ideal of never wanting an innocent man going to jail no matter what. If they were somehow faced with a situation where this ideal comes into question, what will they do and are they willing to take the responsibility.

I mean what the hell, why create hypothetical situations if people are afraid of answering them if its simply to question their practical views on life.
 
  • #17
Pengwuino said:
Its a hypothetical situation, deal with it. Just because you can't handle the reality of such ideological meaningless sayings such as the one presented doesn't mean you can't share what you would actually do.
If I had the power over 1001 men's freedom I'm sure I'd do what every one with that power would do. I'd send him to jail. Thus is the flaw of "leadership".
 
  • #18
Well, I won't be snide about this post. I understand it purpose perfectly well I think. Although it is kinda a gut wrentcher to send an innocent man to prison for under any circumstances, I thought about it, and those 1000 felons, a certian percentage would probably be murderers, yes? If they are released, then they might kill again. So looking at it from this perspective, it can boil down to would you kill 1 innocent man or 100 innocent men? (Or women)

Although no innocent person should ever go through any kind of punishment in a practical system, since that convicted felons would never be released under similar circumstances, this is not questioning a practical system, yes? So given the circumstances, it would be better to sacrifice one person then 100 people. It is a troublesome situation either way, but I think this is the route to take.
 
  • #19
The U.S. penal system assumes the death penalty to be adjudicated perfectly, or otherwise at least one innocent person will suffer the ultimate punishment. As it stands, a lot of people sentenced and put to death have later been found not guilty of the charges that led them there.
 
  • #20
Loren Booda said:
The U.S. penal system assumes the death penalty to be adjudicated perfectly, or otherwise at least one innocent person will suffer the ultimate punishment. As it stands, a lot of people sentenced and put to death have later been found not guilty of the charges that led them there.


And in a system where you can buy yourself free, there is more likely that an innocent man with few or no resources (e.g. money and/or background) is sentenced to death than a guilty man with a lot of resources.
Let's face it - corruption happens everywhere! :uhh:
And with that in mind, I think death penalty is wrong.

But that was off topic. I'm sorry! :wink:
 
  • #21
In this situation I create anarchy awareness and everyone is set free.
The world has become weak, sheltered, and stupid.
I would let all the fugitives out to make people understand they need to learn to defend themselves, that it is human to do so.
 
  • #22
I have heard it estimated that .1% of Muslims are of the radical, violent variety. See what one guilty man can do to the reputation of one thousand.
 
  • #23
Pengwuino said:
It's about dealing with some peoples view of justice damn it! It may make no sense but it's all about practical justice. Can people really live up to the philisophical/ideological ideal of never wanting an innocent man going to jail no matter what. If they were somehow faced with a situation where this ideal comes into question, what will they do and are they willing to take the responsibility.
OK, then one logical solution, rather than free 1000 criminals to save the innocent man, is to have the new evidence that the man is innocent brought forth since the person that must make the decision now has this new knowledge in front of him/her. As I see it, that is the correct "responsibility" to take in this case. Recall, that the defendent was always innocent, until during the trial he was found to be guilty.
And, why should it be a philosophic ideal to never want an innocent man to go to jail, no matter what ? It all depends on the "what". What if 1000 first born babies must die so that the innocent man goes free ? Or better yet, what if one baby must die (pick any person you know, be sure to include yourself)...where then is your ideological ideal ? You can be sure I would let the man go to jail rather than have my baby die so that he goes free.
 
  • #24
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?
 
  • #25
Bio-Hazard said:
In this situation I create anarchy awareness and everyone is set free.
The world has become weak, sheltered, and stupid.
I would let all the fugitives out to make people understand they need to learn to defend themselves, that it is human to do so.

I agree... i see I am not the only one with this idealism.
 
  • #26
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 doesn't 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.
 
  • #27
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 each other is because the government is stopping them.
 
  • #28
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.
 
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
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 each other is because the government is stopping them.

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. 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...
 
  • #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?
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
7K
Back
Top