4 ms·
>"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." I believe this is by far the best way to handle it as well, but I did recently re
by ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
>"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
I believe this is by far the best way to handle it as well, but I did recently read a book that brought up an interesting point.
The line above is almost always the justification given. But, what if those ten were murderers, and by letting those ten escape, each one ended up killing another innocent? Now in your efforts to stop one innocent from going to prison, ten innocents have died, versus the one that would have been falsely imprisoned otherwise.
- leetcrew 7y agothe objective is not some utilitarian maximization of wellbeing; it's to prevent the state specifically from bringing harm to an innocent person. the implication is that it's worse for the state to directly harm an innocent person than for the state to allow harm to come to that person through inaction (eg, failing to imprison murderers).
- stared 7y agoWell, Stalin had a habit of executing not only the suspected, but also their friends, family, and neighbors. He cared more for recall than precision. ... Utilitarian arguments (to which I adhere to, in general) are hard. There are so many consequences, including ones that are not immediate. With putting people under arrest we often go for recall. Yes, it is a nasty experience for an innocent, but at the same time, it may avoid the case you mentioned. Which long-term consequences? First, just because someone is a murderer, does not mean he/she is going to go on a rampage. Second, if precision is high, people can trust the system in the long term, and give some feeling of safety. Compare it with a lynch mob scenario, where it is easy to mishandle justice (and, long term, a lot of innocent are at risk).