Actually, homicide isn’t an inconvenient disagreement - it leaves no room for disagreement, if you will…
The uniquely American doctrine leaves the USA with the highest incarceration rate on earth, because of our unwillingness to consider other alternative judicial outcomes. A great majority of all people convicted of homicide would very likely live out the remainder of their lives without ever re-offending, and could be released without significant threat to public safety. They are being kept imprisoned purely out of vengeance.
With no further information, I’m inclined, reluctantly, to imprison them all, with the hope that the innocent person can find their way out eventually (unless that’s fighting the hypothetical).
But if I can get more information, I will, and it’ll influence my decision. Ranking the murderers from “least likely to want to imprison them all” to “most likely to imprison them all,” would look something like this:
-Anguished parents who murdered their child’s rapist/killer (or similar situation)
-Bikers who murdered members of a rival, violent biker gang (or similar situations)
-One-off crimes of low-impulse-control vengeance or anger (I hate “crimes of passion” as a term)
-Murderers who saw a one-time gain from murder
-Mass murderers
-Serial killers
If the bunch includes even a single serial killer, I’d be much likelier to imprison them all. If it’s a mix of folks who are unlikely to reoffend, and folks whose offenses are against others who are similarly murderous, I’d be much likelier to free them all in order to save the one innocent.
The problem is that we assume this question teaches us something about our current system.
But that’s illusory. We don’t have access to anyone with perfect information. We have an adversarial trial that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt because we think that this is the best way to assess guilt while ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly convicted. “Best way,” is not “perfectly accurate way.”
Always nice to have a new variant on the old trolley problem. For certain values of ‘nice.’
I find all this “set them all free” perspective strange.
Do you think the current justice system is good enough to make sure that 99% of people in prison today are currently guilty? Probably not.
If that is so, should we free every single person in prison today?
Well, since we’re just makin’ sh*t up to try to sound clever…
I would set them all free on the condition that they had to go live with Nate.
Did they receive a fair trial and were found guilty by a jury of their peers? And it’s just me that somehow knows one of them is innocent?
Because if that’s the case, and the process was followed correctly, then I am willing to accept the poor soul that was somehow found guilty of a crime he didn’t commit (which, of course, happens in our current system all the time).
2 points:
- The recidivism rate for violent offenders, particularly homicides, is lower in part due to the fact that perpetrators generally get longer sentences and are older and less able to commit violent crimes upon their release.
- Are you willing to pick the “great majority” who would not reoffend - and be held civilly responsible if wrong? Not many would because the odds are that you will at some point pick wrong and someone will die.
That said, crimes of passion may well call for different treatment than “cold blooded” acts. The person who snaps upon discovering their spouse in bed with another probably won’t reoffend. The gang banger who shoots someone because they are wearing the wrong colors is far more likely to re-offend.
It boils down to the purpose of prison - is it punitive or rehabilitive? If the former, then a life is worth a life, if the latter then motive and predictive data can be factored in. I don’t think the US in general has answered the purpose question, which leads to inconsistent sentencing.
IMHO.
I’m with jtur88; not only do I feel it a grave wrong to knowingly imprison a person against their will, but I also am not of the mind that life without parole is a morally appropriate catch-all for murder in the first place.
You know the wrongly accused guy is innocent and doesn’t deserve punishment… but it’s possible that the new person who gets killed by releasing 99 murderers could “have it coming” and/or their removal would benefit society; IOW there’s a non-zero chance that the new victim could be a bad person but a zero chance that the innocent guy is.
I am horrible, I would sentence 1 innocent to life to get 99 monsters off the streets. It sucks, but really to safeguard everybody, one person ends up having their life turn to hell.
Kill them all and let God sort it out.
The USA has had the highest incarceration rate in the world for as long as records have been kept, and yet still seems to need to imprison more people than any other nation, so if rehabilitation is the desired goal, it doesn’t seem to be working very well.
I don’t have any statistics at hand, but whenever I read about an execution, the felon is never a gang banger – more likely some guy who panicked while sticking up a gas station to feed his impoverished family. Police officer acquaintances have told me that murder suspects are very rarely the kind of people who would re offend.
With a few exceptions, I’m for turning them all loose. Prison has certainly scared them straight, which woujld fall into the category of rehabilitation.
As it happens, I do have stats to back up my claims. I should have linked to them before.
While murderers rarely murder again (or at least don’t get caught), a high percentage of those that committed murder in a general altercation or in the commission of a felony do go back to prison for crimes ranging from probation violation to violent crimes (see chart on page 505 of linked doc).
Here we see that the 5 year recidivism rate for violent criminals overall is 71% (table page 8). For murder specifically it ranges from 48% to 53%, depending on the type of murder. Those stats are for all subsequent crimes, including parole violations, drug and property crimes. The table on page 9 shows that 28% of violent criminals are rearrested for a violent crime within 5 years, most commonly assault.
All I’m saying is that, if you release the 99 guilty people, stats show that there will be at least 70 additional crimes and 28 of those will be violent. By convicting all 100 you not only get 99 murderers off the streets, but prevent 70+ additional future crimes. Worth it? Well, that’s the debate isn’t it?
Why a zero chance the innocent guy is bad? That’s only if you assume it’s a complete mistake or frame up of an upstanding person. In the real world people accused of murders they actually didn’t do often are not being charged with other crimes, even other murders, they did do. Though the case you state, murder victims being themselves serious criminals, is common also (I don’t agree being a ‘bad person’ in any possible way means you ‘have it coming’ to be killed or even that serious criminals necessarily deserve to be killed, but just to stick to what we apparently agree: it’s common for murder victims to be serious criminals themselves).
I’m not sure that whole exercise clarifies anything though. 
Or maybe it does by pointing back to how artificial it is say we know about guilt or innocence except through the findings of the justice system, however imperfect. As in, if we could really know for sure the guilt/innocence of 100 people, we could certainly also know which of the 99 were more or less of a threat to murder again, what kind of a person the ‘innocent’ guy really is, or maybe even foresee who else will get murdered by releasing the 99. IOW it’s kind of supernatural to begin with to assume we know for sure who is ‘factually’ innocent or guilty that everyone else doesn’t know.
And this isn’t actually ignoring the spirit of the question, it’s trying to focus on it. In the real world the question is one of probabilities including who is guilty or not to begin with.
Huh. My moral calculus is fairly different, with one caveat: is the gang banger shooting a member of a rival violent gang? If so, I’d be likelier to let him go than to let go the spouse-killer, because I’m more concerned about those who are violent against nonviolent people than about those who are violent against other killers.
The spouse-murderer might not kill another spouse, but he might; and he’s certainly shown that he’s willing to use violence to enforce his will on those he’s in a relationship with. Letting him free is a real problem for me.
Hey, you feel what you feel, but just to point out a couple of things:
Except for that nasty fact that bullets aren’t fired in a vacuum, and innocent people get injured or killed by stray shots - especially since gang related shootings typically take place in crowed urban areas.
[sub]Well, I guess one could fire bullets in a vacuum, but that would suck.[/sub]
I think you’re conflating a crime of passion with domestic abuse. Stats show that someone who kills a spouse or spouse’s lover upon, say, catching them cheating is, statistically speaking, not going to reoffend. A domestic abuser who kills a spouse would fall into the “murder while in an altercation” group that is highly likely to reoffend.
[sub]Which brings to mind the old saw that it’s better to kill a cheating spouse once than a different lover every week.[/sub]
For those who voted “set them free:” Doesn’t the U.S. justice system, in real life, already have a ratio in which there is more than 1 innocent person on death row, or in life imprisonment for a murder he/she did not commit, per 99 people who were convicted of murder and were indeed guilty?
So going by that “Better to set 100 free if there is one innocent among them” logic, should we set all convicted murderers in the US free right now? There might in fact be 2 or 3 innocents among them, in real life.
This is a very fair point. If the gang killer were acting in ways that significantly endangered innocents, that’d change my calculus.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious: do these statistics about reoffending include nonlethal offenses? I would highly suspect that people who are willing to murder a cheating spouse would also be willing to beat a defiant spouse or child, and I’d want to keep that kind of violence away from innocent people also.