Is it better to let a guilty man walk free or better to punish one who is innocent?

[phart010 | 1,708]

Clickbait- I meant to say “not guilty” in the title.. If someone is not guilty, it doesn’t imply they are innocent, it just means there is not enough evidence to prove they are guilty.
 

This thread is about the principles, not a specific case. So please take Bill Cosby discussions to the Bill Cosby thread.
 

Ok, Let’s say there is a man charged with a crime. It looks very likely that he is guilty, but there’s just not quite enough evidence to make things conclusive.

Is it better to assume that he’s guilty and punish him accordingly? Or is it better to give him the benefit of the 1 in a million chance that he’s actually not guilty and let him walk free?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,588]

1 in a million?  We'd literally never convict anyone if that was requirement.

[Hammerfestus | 3,889]

You’ve got to let him go. Punishing the innocent is bad.  It leads down a dark road that takes our society backward not forward.  For how much of our history was the default position human carnage?  Still is in some places.  You’ve got to strive to do better than that even if there’s a “toll”on society.  It’s worth paying.

 

Edit: actually finished reading.  Actually 1 in a million?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Hammerfestus

[Tulpa | 3,537]

36 minutes ago, phart010 said:

 

Is it better to assume that he’s guilty and punish him accordingly?

We did that back in the day. We had things like the witch trials, blood feuds, and "hey, I don't like that person, and neither does anyone else so I'm going to accuse him of a crime and hang him."

I'd like to think we've moved on from that.

 

edit: To bring it back to the Cosby thing, when the state makes a criminal case against someone, it has to have ALL of its ducks in a row. Every piece of evidence, every witness, every procedure has to be vetted and above reproach. Yes, that makes in incredibly difficult, but it's better than the ways we used to do it. That's the only way to keep trust in a government charged with handling criminal procedures.

Otherwise, we can go back to caveman days, and every single person on this board will be stew before the end of the week.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Tulpa

[Reed Rothchild | 9,588]

It isn't black and white.  If a one in a million chance is the threshold , they'd better go release everyone right now.

Including the Boston marathon bomber and Dylan Roof and the Toronto incel.

[Californication | 1,490]

The real question is should money be able to influence your legal defense to keep guilty people out of prison.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

18 minutes ago, Californication said:

The real question is should money be able to influence your legal defense to keep guilty people out of prison.

That's asking the question in the wrong direction, IMO.

Representation available to people that don't have means is generally understood to be low quality.

Finding a way to bring that quality UP does not necessitate reducing the quality of legal defense for people that can afford it.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

To the OP's question - 1-in-a-million is way too long of odds, if there was even a way to determine such a thing.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a pretty solid threshold. 

 

That said, there is certainly a problem in our country with unequal initial enforcement, unequal juror outcomes, and unequal sentencing, which all need to be addressed in some fashion (separate from the selected legal standard of "guilty"/"not guilty")

[Californication | 1,490]

4 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

That's asking the question in the wrong direction, IMO.

Representation available to people that don't have means is generally understood to be low quality.

Finding a way to bring that quality UP does not necessitate reducing the quality of legal defense for people that can afford it.

There is an issue at some level when money is getting guilty people out of jail. You call it a quality legal defense, I am saying the system is not working. 

[WhyNotZoidberg | 586]

Letting a guilty person walk free does no immediate harm to any parties involved. Sure, there's the risk of recidivism (is that a word?), but then again the nature of the crime could be very different from one case to the other, so there's no real guarantee of violence of direct harm to anyone else short term. Fiscal criminals walk free all the time.

Jailing an innocent person is straight up violence.

[Webhead123 | 687]

41 minutes ago, Californication said:

The real question is should money be able to influence your legal defense to keep guilty people out of prison.

Absolutely an important question and the real answer is "no". As the saying goes (I've forgotten who it originally comes from), "A man who is feeling kind might help cover your debts. If he were feeling notably charitable or loving toward you, he might even take your place in prison or even upon the noose. But none, no matter how selflessly generous can absolve you of your responsibility."

Guilty is guilty is guilty and no amount of money changes the reality of what a person has done. Obviously, our legal system is a touch more complicated than that but the idea of "buying one's way out" is a disgusting moral notion, I think every rational person would agree.

To the OP question, it must be "innocence until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)". Our history has been tainted and bloodied by governances that did not always hold to that standard (and some still exist even today). Once you start introducing the idea that "inherent guilt" is a viable concept and that a defendant must "disprove" their guilt, you open up the mentality of the witch hunt. And I doubt any modern person would be able to form a reasonable argument that society was ever better-served by such a system.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Webhead123

[TDIRunner | 2,777]

It is infinitely better to let a guilty person go free than to take the freedom away from an innocent person.  

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by TDIRunner

[Tulpa | 3,537]

28 minutes ago, Californication said:

There is an issue at some level when money is getting guilty people out of jail. You call it a quality legal defense, I am saying the system is not working. 

Short of bribing a jury, in what way does a well funded legal defense get an acquittal against a prosecution that has made a case beyond a reasonable doubt and has followed every procedure properly? 

Because if a prosecution hasn't fulfilled those two things, then they shouldn't get a guilty verdict.

[Californication | 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Short of bribing a jury, in what way does a well funded legal defense get an acquittal against a prosecution that has made a case beyond a reasonable doubt and has followed every procedure properly? 

Because if a prosecution hasn't fulfilled those two things, then they shouldn't get a guilty verdict.

Your question is based within the confines of the current system. If guilty people are going free because the amount of money they spend then the current system needs to be re-thought out structurally if need be. 

What if they put a cap on how much lawyers would make or lawyers all have to be provided by the state.

[JamesRobot | 5,837]

[Tulpa | 3,537]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

Your question is based within the confines of the current system. If guilty people are going free because the amount of money they spend then the current system needs to be re-thought out structurally if need be. 

 

I don't think they are going free because of the amount of money they spend. They're going free because their defense team has shown that the prosecution hasn't made their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that there was a violation of procedure. Which is what the defense team is supposed to do regardless of payscale.

A public defender could potentially do the same. But as Arch said, it's a question of resources, not of the system itself.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Tulpa

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

... or lawyers all have to be provided by the state.

This strikes me as ripe for "perverse incentive" to exist.

[Californication | 1,490]

Just now, arch_8ngel said:

This strikes me as ripe for "perverse incentive" to exist.

I'm just spit balling all attorneys are hired by the state and provided to people who go to court by lottery for example.

[Californication | 1,490]

38 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

I don't think they are going free because of the amount of money they spend. They're going free because their defense team has shown that the prosecution hasn't made their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that there was a violation of procedure. Which is what the defense team is supposed to do regardless of payscale.

A public defender could potentially do the same. But as Arch said, it's a question of resources, not of the system itself.

So you think guilty people should go free?

Because we hear this story all the time, this case isn't a one off, this is a normal story we hear on a regular basis.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Californication

[Hammerfestus | 3,889]

6 minutes ago, Californication said:

So you think guilty people should go free?

What is this even supposed to mean?

[Tulpa | 3,537]

14 minutes ago, Californication said:

So you think guilty people should go free?

If the state has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. Because the alternative, jailing people because they "might" have done it, is worse.

 

20 minutes ago, Californication said:

Because we hear this story all the time, this case isn't a one off, this is a normal story we hear on a regular basis.

You do know the vast majority of cases don't go to trial. Either charges get dropped for lack of evidence or the case is ironclad enough that it goes to plea bargain. I mean, the Varsity Blues case had a bunch of rich people and virtually all of them saw the inside of a jail cell. That money didn't get them off.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

38 minutes ago, Californication said:

I'm just spit balling all attorneys are hired by the state and provided to people who go to court by lottery for example.

You still are talking about having all attorneys hired by the same state that is bringing charges and seeking a conviction.

The conflict of interest is real and significant.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

35 minutes ago, Californication said:

So you think guilty people should go free?

Because we hear this story all the time, this case isn't a one off, this is a normal story we hear on a regular basis.

If the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, then that person should not be convicted.

The problem is not with rich people mounting a better defense that provides a better argument of reasonable doubt.

The problem is with poor people not being able to mount an adequate defense, or being steered/bullied into taking a plea agreement, where a conviction should have been avoidable.

[Californication | 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

If the state has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. Because the alternative, jailing people because they "might" have done it, is worse.

Those are not the only optional alternatives our court system is not sacrosanct. Our courts are broken at the bottom to people who can't get representation, they are broken to the top with guilty people with money can walk away with a slap on the wrist or a not guilty verdict, and they are broken at the supreme court.

[phart010 | 1,708]

7 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

You still are talking about having all attorneys hired by the same state that is bringing charges and seeking a conviction.

The conflict of interest is real and significant.

I think that conflict is why public defenders suck so much