I find that hard to believe (I’d like to believe it though, because then this world would probably be a much nicer place to live in). Aside from the fact that there is no way of proving that every evil-doer somehow suffers the consequenses of his actions, who is to say that these consequenses in any way account or make up for the extent of the evil act (as opposed to being punished in a court of law)?
Um, how exactly does “erring on the side of a guilty verdict” - that is, putting an innocent person in jail - save one single life? The serial killer will still be out there.
This is my candidate for worst SDMB cliche - the “walk a mile in the shoes of ” argument. Ohmigod, people will be affected? I never thought of that!
But let’s parse out what you have argued. If we provide protections for the defendant, IOW the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement for guilt, a hundred murderers may go free in order to spare the one innocent man. Each of those murderers may kill one more person. To avoid this possibility, it is better to change the rules of the criminal justice system so that we do not go to such lengths to protect the potentially innocent defendant - IOW abandon the “reasonable doubt” standard.
First, is there any evidence that the average murderer kills more than once? I would tend to doubt it.
If there were any evidence that 100 additional people will die if we spare the life of the one innocent man, you may have a point. But there is none. You have premised your position on a possibility on top of a possibility - that 100 guilty men will go free and each one of them will kill again - that seem highly remote.
Second I find it puzzling when conservatives cast aspersions on the “it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent” standard. It is a conservative statement on three grounds.
[list=a]
[li]It is the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers. The protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are all premised on the concept that it is more important to protect the innocent accused than convict the guilty accused.[/li][li]It has been the basis of the American criminal justice system since the founding of the nation - indeed, from before the founding of the nation. It derives from English common law. Abandoning at least 250 years of precedent for a radical new experiment in criminal jurisprudence surely isn’t a conservative position.[/li][li]It is the definition of the conservative position that we need to accept the consequences of our beliefs and actions.[/li][/list=a]
To avoid double-posting, and to add other POV’s to this debate, I link to a thread on this precise issue from about a month ago.
Sua
My thought is that either the prosecutor believe’s the kids (current) statement or they don’t.
If they believe it, then prosecuting the kids is wrong.
If they don’t believe it, then putting the kids up on the witness stand in the other trial amounts to subourning perjury.
If they’re not sure, they shouldn’t be neither be prosecuting the kids nor putting them on the stand. MHO
From a practicla view point, if you punish the innocent, then others will see that you are punishing the innocent. They will realize that it doesn’t matter if they commit a crime or not so they might as well do whatever they like like.
Don’t fall for the trap that nobody will know they are innocent, many will know just that, but their voices count for naught in a court of law because the guilty can have others say that too, but out in the community, the voices will matter. Also, in cases like those sited above, people can see if both are found guilty, some one is being punished for a crime they did not commit.
Ever see a kid who knows no matter what he does he will be punished? I’ve know parents who ground their kids averyonce in a while on the principle that they must have done something. Kid’s thought process seems to develop something like this: Hmm, if I steal my sisters candy and decapitate her dolls, I’ll be grounded. If I sit here and be bored all day and do nothing interesting, I’ll be grounded. Candy tastse good, and hey, I wonder what is in those dolls anyway!
I disagree. It wouldn’t be my fault at all if someone else is arrested. I won’t be the one who will have to state whether this other person is guilty or not. This responsability will rest on the shoulders of another juree. Similarily, I won’t be responsible if the guy is actually guilty and commit another crime. It’s his full responsability, not mine.
My responsability as a member of the jury would be totally limited to the case presented to me. And indeed, I would be responsible if I sent an innocent guy to jail. For this reason, in the situation you describe, I suppose I would choose to release the guy if I’m not fully convinced he’s guilty.
Anyway, I would hate to have to sit in a jury…
That should be the logical conclusion for anybody who believes in a god of justice. But how many christians (or muslims, or whoever else) do you know who states that there should be no human justice system since anyway, men are faillible while god isn’t, evil will be eventually punished, and justice belong to god? Not much, I would guess.
Anyway, I’m atheist. So, I don’t believe that evil will be punished in any way if we don’t take care of that.
To get such a result, you’ll have to accept looser standarts of proof. In other words sentence more innocents. So, now, what if you have to sent 100 innocents to jail or to the death row to avoid letting one seriall killer go free from time to time? Ask the 100 innocent people sentenced and their families and I’m sure they’ll disagree with you…