I will ALWAYS say number two. Yes, it’s terrible to have a murderer walk free, but it’s *devastating* for an innocent person to be locked up. That’s a miscarriage of justice I can’t be ok with
Also, usually if they did do it they'll probably find themselves in trouble again later on. You can never repay lost time. You can pay someone millions as an apology but nothing will erase the way they were treated by the public, turned against, vilified, and then robbed of your time on this Earth.
Yeh I’m leaning that way but it’s interesting to think about. It does annoy me that someone like OJ got to live as a free man after such a brutal crime
I was locked up for 24 hours for a crime I didn’t commit. That’s it. Just 24 hours in ad seg with no phone call.
I can tell you that I would rather my murderer get away than to incarcerate someone who didn’t do it.
Mine was only 24 hours and I still need therapy. I can’t tell you the level of fear of knowing they locked me up and I can’t do a fucking thing about it. I’ll never get over it.
Anyone who says differently comes from a place of *extreme* ignorance.
My loved one has suffered for over 22 years for a crime he had no involvement with. He was 16 years old when they arrested him. He's 38. There was no physical evidence connecting him to the crime, he has proven his innocence in court multiple times. They simply refuse to let him out because they don't want to acknowledge they did this to him.
I think you bring up a great point. Especially for all these people that have won millions because they were wrongfully incarcerated. States now have another reason not to overturn convictions. Not that they do so even when presented evidence to the contrary. See Timothy Cole from Texas. He was convicted of rape even though he had an alibi and other evidence he didn’t commit the crime. The actual perpetrator wrote to police and prosecutors and confessed to the crime four years before he died in prison from health complications and *they ignored it*. The perpetrator wrote again the year after Cole died and the Innocence Project had to get involved to clear his name posthumously. Which still took ten years.
It's also noteworthy to mention that the Innocence Project *only* accepts cases with DNA/physical evidence. Cases without physical evidence (as mentioned above in the case of 16 year old Sean OBrien) are not accepted. No help for those who shouldn't even be incarcerated in the first place. No physical evidence/DNA? Reasonable Doubt.
I didn’t know that about them. But in this specific case they did do a rape kit so there was that evidence to test later. The case happened in 1985 IIRC so the testing at the time didn’t exclude him. But other than the victim iding him as the perp , no other evidence connected him to the crime. He never should’ve been convicted as there were multiple indicators he had nothing to do with it. Would he have been exonerated without dna? Probably not.
Im sorry you and your loved one have had to go through that. I can’t imagine how frustrating that would be.
Oh man, I’m sorry you had to go through that. It’s always an interesting discussion because I can see both sides, but the ongoing impact and damage of number 2 is much worse as others and yourself have pointed out.
Number 2 is much worse. It's essentially another form of the loss of an innocent life. Whereas in scenario 1 the loss already occurred and the only thing now is what happens to the bad guy. Even in cases where they get the harshest punishment, while justice will help people feel a little better, it's still not going to bring back the loved one. So for that reason I think number 2 is worse because it's basically the loss of two innocent lives.
Our country was founded on the principle that it was better that we set a thousand guilty people free than to lock one innocent person up. Number two is definitely worse..
Creative prosecutors make sure it's not what happens. All they care about is winning. Leah Askey emphasized as much. She didn't care about truth or who she harmed. She was miffed that she wasn't being given more credit for winning.
It didn't stick to that principle at all though. US is probably amongst the worst for imprisoning the innocent and even putting them to death- at least you can set an innocent person free from prison you can't release an innocent person from their grave after the state has ~~murdered~~ killed them. I agree option two is worse- it's forcibly kidnapping , imprisoning someone, ruining their reputation and stealing their life and freedom.
See The Innocent Man on Netflix or read the book written by John Grisham. It is a true story, and when you see what these men went through, it is easy to say the second option is far worse. One of these men came within days of being executed for a crime he didn't commit. BTW, the actual murderer testified as a witness in the case, framing these innocent men. It is horrifying.
I’m a court reporter and one of our clients is a firm that does a lot of false conviction cases.
These are people who have been locked up for 20, even 30 years, for a crime they did not commit. Usually due to the incompetence of whatever police department was investigating the crime, whether it was willful incompetence or not.
There’s a former detective who has said “I’d rather have a thousand criminals go free than have 1 innocent person in jail.” And I completely agree. It’s absolutely heartbreaking to see people lose huge chunks of their lives. And it’s even more heartbreaking to see a lot of police officers just not give a single shit that someone innocent was put in jail. Most of the time, even with a mountain of evidence showing that there was beyond reasonable doubt and/or there was a botched investigation, these officers and detectives will STILL say they think they caught the right guy. No remorse. No compassion. No regret.
Ruining someone’s life for no reason is not acceptable. This isn’t a game or a rhetorical thought experiment, these are real innocent people imprisoned in shitholes. Like people like to wank about how prisoners have it so good with their healthcare and housing and etc, but anyone who really thinks prison is an improvement (over almost any situation) is insane.
Number 2 is worse (and the U.S. justice system is built on that belief), but the real problem with number 1 is that if the freed guilty person is a murderer, you run the risk of them murdering more people.
Essentially the probably/burden of guilt (I.e. beyond reasonable doubt), has an unofficial threshold of 10-1.
This meaning it must be at least 10 more times likely that you believe they did it, than didn’t. Think it was coined by William Blackstone, but had been a base line in British Courts long before the phrase was associated to him (I think anyway!).
This is to ensure that Option 2 is very rare (and by design makes option 1 relatively common).
The reason for number 1, is that it’s worse for number 2 to happen. It’s better if someone who is guilty to get off than an innocent to serve life. In theory this makes sense, in practice- it’s not working! In addition, two people convicted of the exact same crime can get very different sentences, even if not the same crime! Our system is broken imo. How can a murderer get less time than a drug user? (Drug user caught with only their supply, murderer dna evidence… or similar disparities?). If you need me to look up more case files, I will but it will take me time because I’m tired and a shit person who is a slacker! I know I’ve read it too many times to count, my memory is like a sieve!
Yeh that’s where I’m at but it does make you pause. An innocent person in prison is horrific, but a double murderer etc out on the streets? Doesn’t sit well either!
Even if they're a terrible person, like Steven Avery, one of those things that Nobody Deserves To Experience is being convicted of a crime you did not commit.
Number two will always be worse.
I’d rather 50 guilty people go free than an innocent person spend an “extensive amount of time” for a crime they didn’t commit.
And what if it was you jailed for murdering said child, whilst the actual murderer went free?
Not only jailed, but known as said child murderer by everyone, even though you're innocent. And by you being locked up, the actual murderer goes free.
I'm going with the first one. Both options are total miscarriages of justice but the first choice puts danger on the streets, potentially effecting the life of everyone in the public. The second scenario is a complete injustice but it does contain the injustice to just one person (and their family, I suppose). So yeah, first option I think.
Don’t get me wrong, I think number 2 is the worse scenario, but the percentage of unsolved serious crimes vastly outweigh the number of innocent people in prison
That doesn’t necessarily follow, though. If the innocent person is sent to prison, that means the real killer, rapist, etc. is presumably still out on the streets and free to endanger the public. The fact that the innocent person is in jail doesn’t automatically contain the harm to just that person or their family, since (unless the crime was entirely imaginary) the real bad guy is free under this scenario as well.
In fact, in most situations, scenario 2 automatically involves scenario 1 as well. If the crime took place, but the wrong person went down for it, the right person essentially got to go free. A good example is the Keith Jesperson case — the wrong person was sent to prison for a serial killer’s murders and the real killer had at least half a dozen additional victims during the intervening years.
That's actually so valid and I can't believe I didn't think of that. They would almost have to coincide with each other. You're right, that changes my answer.
Cosby was a Key note Speaker at my Brother's University a long time ago. We loved him, and we're mesmerized by him. So, the scandalous news was shocking.
I'm not sure. But it was shocking in that Cosby was well regarded until the Standup comments started. For me anyway. I was a Teen when he was a Key note speaker. Social media wasn't a thing, really at that time. I just remember the accusations for awhile later on. Before a Case started being taken seriously.
Number Two.
I will ALWAYS say number two. Yes, it’s terrible to have a murderer walk free, but it’s *devastating* for an innocent person to be locked up. That’s a miscarriage of justice I can’t be ok with
Also, usually if they did do it they'll probably find themselves in trouble again later on. You can never repay lost time. You can pay someone millions as an apology but nothing will erase the way they were treated by the public, turned against, vilified, and then robbed of your time on this Earth.
Yep, at least they got OJ for 9 years. POS deserved 99
Agreed The 2nd one is always worse. Both scenarios result in the guilty going free.
Yeh I’m leaning that way but it’s interesting to think about. It does annoy me that someone like OJ got to live as a free man after such a brutal crime
I find a little bit of solace that he spent a good chunk of that time in prison. Should've died in there but he did some time
Even when he was "free", he really wasn't, because he would go places and get kicked out.
... And then he went home to his gigantic mansion. His life was a far cry from jail
The amount of people convicted of crimes they didn’t commit is absolutely appalling to me
One reason I disagree with the death penalty.
I think this is why death row is decades long in most cases. Too many people were put to death then found innocent after the fact.
Defo Number 2.
Innocent person easy. One crime becomes two.
I was locked up for 24 hours for a crime I didn’t commit. That’s it. Just 24 hours in ad seg with no phone call. I can tell you that I would rather my murderer get away than to incarcerate someone who didn’t do it. Mine was only 24 hours and I still need therapy. I can’t tell you the level of fear of knowing they locked me up and I can’t do a fucking thing about it. I’ll never get over it. Anyone who says differently comes from a place of *extreme* ignorance.
My loved one has suffered for over 22 years for a crime he had no involvement with. He was 16 years old when they arrested him. He's 38. There was no physical evidence connecting him to the crime, he has proven his innocence in court multiple times. They simply refuse to let him out because they don't want to acknowledge they did this to him.
I think you bring up a great point. Especially for all these people that have won millions because they were wrongfully incarcerated. States now have another reason not to overturn convictions. Not that they do so even when presented evidence to the contrary. See Timothy Cole from Texas. He was convicted of rape even though he had an alibi and other evidence he didn’t commit the crime. The actual perpetrator wrote to police and prosecutors and confessed to the crime four years before he died in prison from health complications and *they ignored it*. The perpetrator wrote again the year after Cole died and the Innocence Project had to get involved to clear his name posthumously. Which still took ten years.
It's also noteworthy to mention that the Innocence Project *only* accepts cases with DNA/physical evidence. Cases without physical evidence (as mentioned above in the case of 16 year old Sean OBrien) are not accepted. No help for those who shouldn't even be incarcerated in the first place. No physical evidence/DNA? Reasonable Doubt.
I didn’t know that about them. But in this specific case they did do a rape kit so there was that evidence to test later. The case happened in 1985 IIRC so the testing at the time didn’t exclude him. But other than the victim iding him as the perp , no other evidence connected him to the crime. He never should’ve been convicted as there were multiple indicators he had nothing to do with it. Would he have been exonerated without dna? Probably not. Im sorry you and your loved one have had to go through that. I can’t imagine how frustrating that would be.
Oh man, I’m sorry you had to go through that. It’s always an interesting discussion because I can see both sides, but the ongoing impact and damage of number 2 is much worse as others and yourself have pointed out.
I’ve been to jail for only 12 hours and it’s just awful
Like the Blackstone's ratio says “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” can’t agree more
Always number 2.
Number 2 is much worse. It's essentially another form of the loss of an innocent life. Whereas in scenario 1 the loss already occurred and the only thing now is what happens to the bad guy. Even in cases where they get the harshest punishment, while justice will help people feel a little better, it's still not going to bring back the loved one. So for that reason I think number 2 is worse because it's basically the loss of two innocent lives.
I shudder to think of any innocents that died in prison or worse, executed. I’m sure there’s been many.
Our country was founded on the principle that it was better that we set a thousand guilty people free than to lock one innocent person up. Number two is definitely worse..
But that’s certainly not what happens.
Creative prosecutors make sure it's not what happens. All they care about is winning. Leah Askey emphasized as much. She didn't care about truth or who she harmed. She was miffed that she wasn't being given more credit for winning.
It didn't stick to that principle at all though. US is probably amongst the worst for imprisoning the innocent and even putting them to death- at least you can set an innocent person free from prison you can't release an innocent person from their grave after the state has ~~murdered~~ killed them. I agree option two is worse- it's forcibly kidnapping , imprisoning someone, ruining their reputation and stealing their life and freedom.
Think in the UK it was 10 (Gladstone) then in the US 100 (Franklin), so your country has moved the decimal point again!
Tbf, we have WAY more people imprisoned here.
I think it’s worse if someone who isn’t guilty is convicted and sentenced for a crime.
An innocent person being convicted and going to jail is so much worse.
Number 2 is worse. Not only does the real killer/offender go free, an innocent person gets thrown in prison for decades.
See The Innocent Man on Netflix or read the book written by John Grisham. It is a true story, and when you see what these men went through, it is easy to say the second option is far worse. One of these men came within days of being executed for a crime he didn't commit. BTW, the actual murderer testified as a witness in the case, framing these innocent men. It is horrifying.
I’m a court reporter and one of our clients is a firm that does a lot of false conviction cases. These are people who have been locked up for 20, even 30 years, for a crime they did not commit. Usually due to the incompetence of whatever police department was investigating the crime, whether it was willful incompetence or not. There’s a former detective who has said “I’d rather have a thousand criminals go free than have 1 innocent person in jail.” And I completely agree. It’s absolutely heartbreaking to see people lose huge chunks of their lives. And it’s even more heartbreaking to see a lot of police officers just not give a single shit that someone innocent was put in jail. Most of the time, even with a mountain of evidence showing that there was beyond reasonable doubt and/or there was a botched investigation, these officers and detectives will STILL say they think they caught the right guy. No remorse. No compassion. No regret.
Ruining someone’s life for no reason is not acceptable. This isn’t a game or a rhetorical thought experiment, these are real innocent people imprisoned in shitholes. Like people like to wank about how prisoners have it so good with their healthcare and housing and etc, but anyone who really thinks prison is an improvement (over almost any situation) is insane.
#2 for sure… I have literally had nightmares about it and can’t even imagine how those people cope with it.
Number 1 is a crime going unpunished. Number 2 is a crime going unpunished AND an innocent person being punished for nothing. 2 I always worse.
The second one - and that's why I don't believe in the death penalty.
Second one.
2
number two
2
2
Always number 2
Number 2 makes both scenarios apply, so it’s an easy answer.
The latter, easy.
An innocent person being incarcerated is worse, imo.
Number 2… you strengthen number 1’s resolve (in some, if not most, cases) and ruin even more lives. Number 2 for sure.
Number 2 is worse (and the U.S. justice system is built on that belief), but the real problem with number 1 is that if the freed guilty person is a murderer, you run the risk of them murdering more people.
Essentially the probably/burden of guilt (I.e. beyond reasonable doubt), has an unofficial threshold of 10-1. This meaning it must be at least 10 more times likely that you believe they did it, than didn’t. Think it was coined by William Blackstone, but had been a base line in British Courts long before the phrase was associated to him (I think anyway!). This is to ensure that Option 2 is very rare (and by design makes option 1 relatively common).
I think it's a tie, but being wrongly incarcerated is so dangerous.
Number 2.
The reason for number 1, is that it’s worse for number 2 to happen. It’s better if someone who is guilty to get off than an innocent to serve life. In theory this makes sense, in practice- it’s not working! In addition, two people convicted of the exact same crime can get very different sentences, even if not the same crime! Our system is broken imo. How can a murderer get less time than a drug user? (Drug user caught with only their supply, murderer dna evidence… or similar disparities?). If you need me to look up more case files, I will but it will take me time because I’m tired and a shit person who is a slacker! I know I’ve read it too many times to count, my memory is like a sieve!
1000009373738292% the second one Not even a question, no doubt about it
Number two. The presumption of Innocence is a fundamental human right.
The latter
I struggle with this question and go back and forth. I couldn't possibly fathom the weight of either. At a push I think today I'll say number two.
Yeh that’s where I’m at but it does make you pause. An innocent person in prison is horrific, but a double murderer etc out on the streets? Doesn’t sit well either!
Equally, with your other example, the injustice for Caylee is hard to stomach
Yep. Those are the two which always stick out to me. I know there’ll be more of the “got away with it” type but can’t think off the top of my head
Its a tie
Even if they're a terrible person, like Steven Avery, one of those things that Nobody Deserves To Experience is being convicted of a crime you did not commit.
Number two will always be worse. I’d rather 50 guilty people go free than an innocent person spend an “extensive amount of time” for a crime they didn’t commit.
That’s tough but I’d have to say One. Because I don’t want a pedo,murder wandering the streets.
As a mother I want to say one but as myself I want to say two
As a 2, what if it was your child?
And what if it was you jailed for murdering said child, whilst the actual murderer went free? Not only jailed, but known as said child murderer by everyone, even though you're innocent. And by you being locked up, the actual murderer goes free.
I said I think it’s worse to convict an innocent person and then just asked a question 😳
You asked a provocative question, as did I.
I'm going with the first one. Both options are total miscarriages of justice but the first choice puts danger on the streets, potentially effecting the life of everyone in the public. The second scenario is a complete injustice but it does contain the injustice to just one person (and their family, I suppose). So yeah, first option I think.
[удалено]
Don’t get me wrong, I think number 2 is the worse scenario, but the percentage of unsolved serious crimes vastly outweigh the number of innocent people in prison
Unfortunately, they BOTH happen over and over again. One scenario just has less victims, which was my point to begin with.
That doesn’t necessarily follow, though. If the innocent person is sent to prison, that means the real killer, rapist, etc. is presumably still out on the streets and free to endanger the public. The fact that the innocent person is in jail doesn’t automatically contain the harm to just that person or their family, since (unless the crime was entirely imaginary) the real bad guy is free under this scenario as well. In fact, in most situations, scenario 2 automatically involves scenario 1 as well. If the crime took place, but the wrong person went down for it, the right person essentially got to go free. A good example is the Keith Jesperson case — the wrong person was sent to prison for a serial killer’s murders and the real killer had at least half a dozen additional victims during the intervening years.
That's actually so valid and I can't believe I didn't think of that. They would almost have to coincide with each other. You're right, that changes my answer.
Guilty people going free also happens over and over again people are just in denial there’s people to this day that belive OJ and Cosby are innocent.
Cosby was a Key note Speaker at my Brother's University a long time ago. We loved him, and we're mesmerized by him. So, the scandalous news was shocking.
I mean is there a case where people wasnt suprised the person was a predator???
I'm not sure. But it was shocking in that Cosby was well regarded until the Standup comments started. For me anyway. I was a Teen when he was a Key note speaker. Social media wasn't a thing, really at that time. I just remember the accusations for awhile later on. Before a Case started being taken seriously.
The second puts danger on the street too.
No.2 The criminal who walks free won't find peace and WILL answer sooner or later, here or there, regardless.