8 ms·
> It is better that a criminal go unpunished than for a single innocent person to be harmed wrongfully by the government. That really depends on the number of
by nopcode 5y ago
> It is better that a criminal go unpunished than for a single innocent person to be harmed wrongfully by the government.
That really depends on the number of criminals and the total harm they cause to our society versus the harm caused by the government.
We've been having "liberty versus security" debates for centuries and the balance is always changing.
- vorpalhex 5y agoTomorrow, we decide to re-instate the death penalty for people who commit murder. Our very well trained seers (who are always right) tell us that this will reduce murder by 90%.. but 1/20 people we execute will be innocent of the crime. Do we take the bargain?
- nopcode 5y agoYes, I would take that bargain. Reducing 193 murder victims (Belgium 2017) to 19.3 victims. Assuming there's a 1:1 victim/killer ratio, that would mean ~20 executed killers of which 1 is innocent. So, "accidentally" killing 1 person to save 173 lives.
- vorpalhex 5y agoAre you ok with being the sacrificial lamb?
- 1337shadow 5y agoThat's a really interesting ethical question. It's what the right wight asks: most immigrants are fine, but 1/20 will be radicalized, even commit terrorism acts such as mass murder, do we take the bargain? French president Francois Hollande testified in court that he knew and took the bargain, then, we had Bataclan, Samuel Paty, and so on (please don't make me do the exhaustive list). Now the question is, what would make one decide to apply whatever answer they give here, but not there? Definitely food for thought!