Would you rather let a thousand guilty men go free or put one innocent man to death?
I know I wouldn’t want to be the innocent man who gets executed so I would rather let 1000 scum loose on the streets than sacrifice one innocent person.
That is why I would make a terrible juror I would probably want to let everybody off because I wouldn’t want to take a chance with them being innocent.
You have just posted what is probably the best arguement against the death penalty.
Well that…and it doesn’t work.
The recidivism rate for executed convicts is a happy 0%. Can’t get better than that!
Easy one, since the thousand guily men would most likely not go free at all, but simply receive sentences less harsh than the death penalty. Let 'em “go free”. Saving the one innocent is more important.
Recidivism rate (against the public) for life without parole isn’t too high either. I believe that it’s usually cheaper considering all the appeals.
As may be the case it’s also certain that innocent people put to death cannot be brought back to life. It’s not like anyone one death row has ever been later found to be innocent.
And that’s always the crux of the biscuit for me. Give that that law is a human institution (‘The LAW? The law is a human institution’) a system designer must be able to acknowledge the probability of error. And in this case the error would be one without recompense.
Well, would you rather let a thousand guilty people go free or put one innocent person in prison for 20 years or thereabouts?
i.e, don’t turn this into a death penalty debate at the expense of considering the underlying question, which is provocative with or without the death penalty.
(My answer: yes, I would)
I take it you are of the “kill them all let God sort them out ilk”.
Right?
So what if a few innocent people die. At least we took care of a few guilty ones!
I presume that you are of the 'kill them, cut 'em into little pieces, and keep ‘em in jars’ ilk.
Right?
Hey, it’s about as relevant as whatever the hell you going on about.
My first thought was of course, rather the innocent man should live.
But the I thought, what if those guilty ones go out and injure many more?
Difficult choice and I’m glad its hypothetical.
I’d probably have the one innocent man die.
Just what sort of crimes are the 1000 men guilty of? Stealing candy bars out of 711s or stealing cars and hurting people?
And what if you tweak the number a bit. Would you set 100,000 free before killing the inocent man? How about 10,000,000? If you find that an inocent man had been wrongly convicted, woudl you scrap the current system of jurisprudence, that is let everyone out of prison, just to make sure that no innocent people are killed?
You have to remember that the formula of X guilty men going free to protect 1 innocnet man is rhetoric. It is not realy meant as a formula for justice. Specifically, it means that we put the bar very high indeed for the state to take away someone’s freedom. And we try and place ti higher still for taking away his life.
Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty because I do not think the bar can be placed high enough. On the other hand, if we are going to have it, I think executions should be public.
It’s a false dichotomy. One needn’t worry about the lone inocent man put to death to be against the death penalty.
I don’t favor the death penalty because I don’t see that it is necessary for justice to be served. Life in prison w/o the possibility of parole does the job.
To accept START’s premise you would have to believe that only one in a thousand people executed in this country has been innocent of the crime for which he (usually “he”) was convicted. Since DNA evidence has become prominent, a number of individuals who were convicted have been found to be innocent. Before DNA those people would have been executed. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the ratio is much higher than one in a thousand.
DNA isn’t the only reason innocent people languish on death row (relatively few are actually executed…except in Texas, maybe). Inadequate representation by court appointed attorneys who have huge caseloads and too little time to devote to any one client plays a large role as well. The poor are far more likely to be convicted than the rich. I think it’s unlikely that that is only because they are more likely to be guilty. Clearly a rich guilty man has a much better chance of walking than a poor innocent one, particularly if the poor man is being prosecuted by someone with political ambitions along with public pressure to get “somebody.”
Before somebody points it out, I have come down on the other side of this argument in these fora in the past, even to the extent of suggesting that an individual who destroyed priceless works of art should be executed. I must have really had my shorts in a knot that day. In any event, I have given the matter a lot of thought subsequently, inspired in no small way by posters to the SDMB.
There is no doubt in my mind that some people deserve to be killed for the crimes they have committed. But I think the standard of reasonable doubt is just not high enough. Consequently, whereas even a year ago I would have said that I supported the death penalty, if asked to serve on a capital jury today I would have to demur.
And the outcome of that sentence differs from the death penalty exactly how?
I’d say kill the innocent man. I would give my life so that one thousand murderers (I’m assuming they are murderers who will kill again), so should anyone, IMO.
That is indeed a tough question, and one I posed to a friend just recently…though I said 100 guilty men instead of 1000.
I’d rather let the guilty go free than execute an innocent. Here’s my thinking: the guilty people you released could be re-captured and might not commit another crime (presumably a violent one, if they are in the running for capital punishment). However, the innocent person will be dead. Whatever your feelings towards capital punishment, surely it is murder to kill an innocent person and if we were to execute them it would make us no better than the thousand we’d kept in the system for similar crimes.
To kill the innocent person is akin to sacrificing a virgin to appease the gods, and that’s something I think we all would recognize as barbaric, no?
Thanks, gouda, for the links, since the second one allowed me to revisit my expressed opinion of only a little less than two years ago. It’s interesting to see in what degree it differed from my opinion of today. But isn’t it likely to kill this thread? I have no doubt that this and just about every other topic has been debated before in these fora. But only the foolishly consistent never change their opinions. Furthermore, most dopers like to state and restate their opinions even in the same thread.
So I ask you, is it better to let a thousand thread “killers” go free or to incarcerate one innocent of that heinous offense? 
It differs in that if you imprison the wrong guy, you can undo it. Life in prison without parole protects society just as much as capital punishment, yet can be undone when mistakes are discovered. I see no logical argument for capital punishment.