Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)

4. You have to consider the converse, as well

Reply to sarisataka (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 11, 2015, 04:17 PM

Jan 2015

Will you volunteer to be one of the people murdered because someone guilty was not convicted? Not punishing probably-guilty people is *not* a risk-free choice; innocent people will suffer as a consequence of your choice *whichever* side you err on, not just if you err on the side of overconvicting.

There are also the two other mirror-image considerations - "how bad do you feel about innocent people being imprisoned to keep you (and your fellow citizens) safe?" and "how bad do you feel about forcing people who have been raped/robbed/had their loved ones murdered etc to watch their wrongers get away with it scott free (or having that happen to yourself)?"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Agree? [View all] Nye Bevan Jan 2015 OP

Yes. And that goes for innocents called "collateral damage". Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #1

Will you volunteer sarisataka Jan 2015 #2

You have to consider the converse, as well Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #4

No, I think that ratio is probably too high. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #3

Also, Motown_Johnny Jan 2015 #5

I agree wholeheartedly with the principle. NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #6