Let’s say you’ve been accused of something bad. And the accusation is widely known and generally believed. To keep it simple we’ll say there’s no threat of criminal charges or any official sanctions involved - this is just about your reputation.
Under the circumstances, which would of the following possibilities would you prefer.
That you’re guilty. The accusation is substantially correct.
That you’re innocent. The accusation is substantially wrong.
To keep it fair, we’ll say your guilt or innocence will have no effect on the strength of the belief people have in the accusation. The only person who’ll know the difference is you.
Would the knowledge that you were innocent despite what other people thought be a comfort or would the knowledge that the accusation was unjust be an extra burden?
To be wrongfully accused sucks, but it sucks a lot worse to be shamed for something you did do. As long as you’re innocent you can at least try to clear your name, and who knows when evidence proving the truth may turn up? I can’t imagine why you’d want to be guilty.
I can think of a number of bad things that, depending on where you live, may be beneficial if people believed it of you. I’m primarily thinking of murder or general thuggery. As for me, I like my rep as a family man.
I was wrongly accused of being a pedophile about 8 years ago, and it still haunts me to this day. The people who know me know I’m not one, but there’s still enough whispering and pointing when I attend my nieces or youngest sister’s school events, city events, and carnivals that it hardly bother to do so anymore.
As for the other, I was accused of slapping my sister. Normally not to big of a deal, but she was 14 and I was 21, not to mention being twice as big as she was, and well over a foot taller. It was a horrible thing to do to a 14 year old, and I knew it the minute I did it. I was fully willing to serve jail time for it, but the DA never bothered to do any of the legwork to get my case to trial.
The accusation of being a pedophile came before me slapping my sister, so one has nothing to do with the other.
I’d rather be innocent. If I was guilty I would actually absorb and internalize the criticism directed at me, whereas if I were innocent I would become much more combattive and resistant.
As an example, I don’t know if Al Gore was railroaded with the sexual assault thing or not, but I know there is a grassroots movement on the right that is trying to defame and bring down liberal institutions. Al Gore would be a good target. So part of me wonders if he was actually guilty or if the woman in question has ties to right wingers and this was another defamatory scam like the ACORN thing, black panter party, Sherrod, etc.
I don’t know if he is guilty or not, but if I were Al Gore and I was innocent, and I felt I was being railroaded, I’d be combattive as hell in my effort to get revenge. And I’d rather be reviled and combattive/vengeful than reviled and internalize it.
So that is my answer. I’d rather be railroaded than actually be guilty. It’d be 80% easier to deal with mentally.
I would rather be guilty and serve the time.
If I am innocent, then if convicted I get punished for a crime I did not committ. If acquitted then I get the benefit of wishpers behind my back of “legal technicality”.
A Barrister, have seen it with persons in real life.
Why would anyone want to be guilty of something bad, assuming the guilty party recognizes the action as morally bad? If the reason is so you did not feel you were paying the penalty for something you did not do, that is certainly not justification enough. The decision that something is morally bad must come from within. And if I’m innocent, there is always that outside chance that I will be able to vindicate myself someday.
This brings to mind the fictional case of a man convicted of murder who does the time only to find out the person is still alive. Is he allowed to go kill the man now and walk free?