a question of morality

[scorpifly]

I just took an online test and one of the questions struck me as a very good one and vry hard for me to answer. I decided to post it and see what you people think. I looked to see if it had been asked before, and found nothing. But if it's here else where please forgive me for the ru-run. Is it better to: Let a guilty person go free? convict an inocent person?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Hmm....I don't even know if I can answer that one. There are so many different factors that would come into play... What kind of guilty man would you be letting free? How long would the innocent man spend behind bars, as opposed to what kind of crime the guilty man commited? If this was normal conversation, I probably couldn't come up with an answer to that one...But... Since this is was an online test that offered two answers to a poly-dimensional question, I'll just answer with my most fundamental mind frame. Its better to let a guilty man go free. A guilty man set free has the chance to see the error of his ways, not only getting a second chance that many people don't get, but possibly standing the chance of becoming a better person if he was Actually remorseful of what he did. You stand the chance of it happening again...but I'm an optimist. A jailed innocent man will probably never have the chance for any redemption. He's forced to sit and stew about how it was he was dragged into a situation he most likely had no idea about, while compounding this with the burning frustration of knowing whoever Was the actual perp went free. Depending on how long the jail time is, that can stay with a person for a long time. ...Uhm...not that I've ever been in jail. :sweat1: I'm just usually pretty good at putting myself in other people's shoes. But if you didn't have to have an a) or B) answer, I'd probably stand neutral on that question without further information.

[Alric]

Well you know what they always say, its better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent person. I would agree with that case. So in a 1 to 1 ratio, there is no question. I would always let the person go free.

[AirRick101]

My impulse was to give a long winded rationalization as to why either one is inappropiate, but I'm going for the convicting the innocent one. A released guilty man will probably not have learned his lesson from the lack of punishment and inflict further damage on society. A conviced innocent man, well....he/she will do his/her best to get out based on evidence, I guess.

[Alric]

Thats horrible. An innocent person shouldn't be made to suffer for the acts of someone else. Is punshing someone really so important that it must over ride the freedom of others?

[AirRick101]

Well, part of the reason why I said that was to sound different. I'm not exactly sure what I believe, and it does indeed depend on the context of the situation. If there was a serial killer who can never learn his lesson, and he is released instead of an average joe sentenced based on false evidence, I think the consequenes of that are far more harmful. And that's what prompted me to say my response. Really, you can't draw the line. I'm really on neither side...

[evolo]

The worse case would be letting the guilty person go free. A man that has done wrong should be punished, and punished until he understands virtue and excercises proper morality. The guilty man does not understand the consequences of his actions , and that is his flaw, his lack of understanding. For if he knew, then he would know better. And a virtuous person would do the better. An innocent man being convicted in this case would be a better scenerio, because he knows right from wrong, unlike the guilty man. An imprisoned innocent man knows what he has not done, but accepts his conviction anyway. His acceptance of injustice puts him above the rest. He knows right from wrong and that is the most important part. The innocent man will know right from wrong both in freedom and in imprisonment. The guilty man will not know right from wrong in freedom, and the only way he might understand it is with imprisonment.

[Alric]

Throwing an innocent man into jail would make you just as bad as a criminal. Putting him in jail might be better for protecting the community but it is still morally wrong. Where is the compassion for him? You would ruin someones life just to teach another person a lesson?

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by AirRick101+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AirRick101)</div> A released guilty man will probably not have learned his lesson from the lack of punishment and inflict further damage on society.[/b] Originally posted by evolo@ A man that has done wrong should be punished, and punished until he understands virtue and excercises proper morality. The guilty man does not *understand the consequences of his actions , and that is his flaw, his lack of understanding. For if he knew, then he would know better. And a virtuous person would do the better. Punishment does not teach virtue, morality, understanding, or any lesson really. It teaches anger, and it teaches fear, and it teaches resentment, but it does not teach someone what to do. In any event, criminals are not put in jail to learn morality. They are there to pay their debts to society. <!--QuoteBegin-evolo An innocent man being convicted in this case would be a better scenerio, because he knows right from wrong, unlike the guilty man. An imprisoned innocent man knows what he has not done, but accepts his conviction anyway. His acceptance of injustice puts him above the rest. He knows right from wrong and that is the most important part. Someone who committed a crime didn't know right from wrong? A moral person can't commit a crime? Your view that only \"scum\" can be criminals and moral men are \"gods\" is completely unfounded and not based on reality. Originally posted by evolo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(evolo)</div> The innocent man will know right from wrong both in freedom and in imprisonment.[/b] Will he? How you can know? How do you that imprisonment won't be a self-fulfilling prophesy, causing him to become the criminal everyone tells him he is? <!--QuoteBegin-evolo The guilty man will not know right from wrong in freedom, and the only way he might understand it is with imprisonment. Is that so? All people guilty of crimes are morally corrupt? We can only help them by imprisoning them? You would have fit in well in the dark ages. Imprisonment is not a "moral treatment"

[evolo]

[ Punishment does not teach virtue, morality, understanding, or any lesson really. It teaches anger, and it teaches fear, and it teaches resentment, but it does not teach someone what to do. In any event, criminals are not put in jail to learn morality. They are there to pay their debts to society. [/b] I agree with you to some extent. Indeed, society imprisoned them for their errors, and that is justified. But supposing an immoral being can't learn morality in imprisonment, where else would they learn it? In freedom? I don't think so. They will continue to think and act in the same way, there are no restrictions. At least in jail, there is a chance that they could reflect upon their actions. Some will consider jail to be torture, and in the future they will do everything possible to stay out of it. Someone who committed a crime didn't know right from wrong? A moral person can't commit a crime? Your view that only \"scum\" can be criminals and moral men are \"gods\" is completely unfounded and not based on reality. [/b] Criminals often don't know right from wrong, that is why they commit the crime. On the other hand, a virtuous moral person does know right from wrong. In reply to your question, I strongly answer yes, a moral man cannot commit an immoral crime. If he commited the crime, he would not be moral. All people guilty of crimes are morally corrupt?[/b] Yes. In this context, I define a crime as a crime against morality.