5 ms·

I would rather a guilty man gets off than an innocent being wrongly convicted every single time. Law is there to protect the innocent first, if not, then it has

by alan_cx 14y ago

I would rather a guilty man gets off than an innocent being wrongly convicted every single time. Law is there to protect the innocent first, if not, then it has no purpose. The guilty and always be gotten later on, the wrongly convicted innocent is ruined for life. If the innocent cant rely on the justice system, again, it is fundamentally broken.

jpwagner 14y ago
...rather a guilty man gets off than an innocent being wrongly convicted... obviously. but you have to actually show that the possibility of a "plea bargain" trades one-for-one (or anything unreasonable) for your argument to be convincing.
- brudgers 14y ago
  The idea that convicting the innocent is the ultimate injustice is not an argument, it is a moral stance. That moral stance accepts the possibility of human error to a degree which makes it impossible to meet the standard you propose.
  - jpwagner 14y ago
    a "jury of your peers" is no more infallible
    - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
      You mean a jury of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty? The common man cares about Kim Kardassian, and what celeb is with who. Or sports..
    - brudgers 14y ago
      There aren't degrees of infallibility and a jury of one's peers may be less fallible.
tsotha 14y ago
>Law is there to protect the innocent first, if not, then it has no purpose. No, actually. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain order. Protection of the innocent is a highly desirable feature, but if too many of the guilty are released people look to their friends and family to deal with transgressors.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  If protecting the innocent was not of the utmost importance, then a modern justice system would be a waste of resources and vigilante lynch mobs would be used instead. The reason we don't do that is because we as a society have largely agreed that the innocent should be protected. That is the purpose of our system.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Nonsense. There are systems all over the world that give only a passing nod to protection of the innocent, and they still work because the guilty are punished most of the time. As I said, the basic purpose of the law is to provide order.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Would you like to live under such systems? What is the distinguishing characteristics between such systems? The recognized importance of the protection of innocents is the demarcation line between a system that maintains order, and a system that maintains order in a civilized fashion. North Korea is one hell of an orderly country. As they embrace generational punishment, they have zero respect for the protection of the innocents. The extent to which other non-extreme examples are more civilized is the extent to which they respect the importance of protecting the innocents more than North Korea does.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        >Would you like to live under such systems? Not particularly. As I pointed out, protection of the innocent is a highly desirable feature of a legal system. But to say that "Law is there to protect the innocent first, if not, then it has no purpose" is just wrong.

by alan_cx 14y ago

jpwagner 14y ago

...rather a guilty man gets off than an innocent being wrongly convicted... obviously. but you have to actually show that the possibility of a "plea bargain" trades one-for-one (or anything unreasonable) for your argument to be convincing.

brudgers 14y ago
The idea that convicting the innocent is the ultimate injustice is not an argument, it is a moral stance. That moral stance accepts the possibility of human error to a degree which makes it impossible to meet the standard you propose.
- jpwagner 14y ago
  a "jury of your peers" is no more infallible
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    You mean a jury of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty? The common man cares about Kim Kardassian, and what celeb is with who. Or sports..
  - brudgers 14y ago
    There aren't degrees of infallibility and a jury of one's peers may be less fallible.

tsotha 14y ago

>Law is there to protect the innocent first, if not, then it has no purpose. No, actually. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain order. Protection of the innocent is a highly desirable feature, but if too many of the guilty are released people look to their friends and family to deal with transgressors.

jlgreco 14y ago
If protecting the innocent was not of the utmost importance, then a modern justice system would be a waste of resources and vigilante lynch mobs would be used instead. The reason we don't do that is because we as a society have largely agreed that the innocent should be protected. That is the purpose of our system.
- tsotha 14y ago
  Nonsense. There are systems all over the world that give only a passing nod to protection of the innocent, and they still work because the guilty are punished most of the time. As I said, the basic purpose of the law is to provide order.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Would you like to live under such systems? What is the distinguishing characteristics between such systems? The recognized importance of the protection of innocents is the demarcation line between a system that maintains order, and a system that maintains order in a civilized fashion. North Korea is one hell of an orderly country. As they embrace generational punishment, they have zero respect for the protection of the innocents. The extent to which other non-extreme examples are more civilized is the extent to which they respect the importance of protecting the innocents more than North Korea does.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      >Would you like to live under such systems? Not particularly. As I pointed out, protection of the innocent is a highly desirable feature of a legal system. But to say that "Law is there to protect the innocent first, if not, then it has no purpose" is just wrong.