7 ms·
It's a different case, because one compares two very different harms: "guilty man goes free" vs "innocent man imprisoned", and the other compares two very simil
by caf 3y ago
It's a different case, because one compares two very different harms: "guilty man goes free" vs "innocent man imprisoned", and the other compares two very similar harms: "person dies".
The whole point of the "Better 10 guilty men go free..." aphorism is that the two harms are not equal, and that a guilty man going free is less than 10% of the harm of an innocent man imprisoned.
The driving interlock case is just a straight up classic trolley problem.
- anonymous_sorry 3y agoI guess the argument is we shouldn't be endangering people who desperately need to be able to drive "erratically" for good reasons, in order to protect drunk-drivers from themselves. I suppose have some sympathy with that argument, which is why I said a minimum of 1:1 (a lower bound on the ratio). Drunk drivers kill innocent people as well of course.