What Chance Of Innocence Can Be Tolerated For Conviction?

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
To all,

Which do you feel is worse: An innocent person being convicted of murder, or a murderer being let off? What if the only reason the murder got let off despite overwhelming evidence pointing ot his guilt was becuase some officer didn't follow some miniscule procedural duty?

The reason I ask this is that it seems to me that many more criminals get away without having to pay their proper debt to society than innocent people are convicted yet the focus is always on the case where the innocents are convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am nearly certain that everyone will say that it's worse for an innocent to be convicted.

Put another way, your answer to david's original post would have to be higher than 50% to logically say otherwise. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]


which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. It has to be where protection of society and/or deterrence is of such an overiding objective, as opposed to punishment.

So I'm thinking war-related; spying; treason. Where they can be locked up for a (long) while on 20% suspicion, then tried more thoroughly at a more convenient time.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. It has to be where protection of society and/or deterrence is of such an overiding objective, as opposed to punishment.

So I'm thinking war-related; spying; treason. Where they can be locked up for a (long) while on 20% suspicion, then tried more thoroughly at a more convenient time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work - you've just described the status quo.

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. It has to be where protection of society and/or deterrence is of such an overiding objective, as opposed to punishment.

So I'm thinking war-related; spying; treason. Where they can be locked up for a (long) while on 20% suspicion, then tried more thoroughly at a more convenient time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work - you've just described the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
As for your last sentence I agree. I just find it odd that people can simultaneously believe that most people are fuzzy thinkers, yet also think that the important decision of guilt or innocence should be left to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's going to make the decision of guilt or innocence then? Until a better solution is provided, jury is the best available.

The beauty of the jury is it only requires one critical thinker saying "hey, there's not enough evidence here" to stop a conviction. Democracy has the exact same flaws you're talking about only it's a lot worse because you need a mere 51% to screw people over rather than 100%. Of course, the system does its damnedest to keep critical thinkers off juries, but that's another matter.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?


I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the states power to arrest and detain has never been in question. It's the new arrest in secret and hold indefinitely without charges that is new.