"Better to let 100 guilty men go free than to condemn one innocent person"

 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,041 posts
❧


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.

It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?

And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.

We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.

Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.
In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
Because you're advocating jailing an innocent so the 1000 criminals stay in jail.
Because, funnily enough, keeping dangerous people out of society is a first-rate consideration for any criminal justice system; that's pretty much it's entire point. In fact, I'd say it's probably more important.

We haven't managed to improve our justice system over the years by making sure nobody who is innocent goes to gaol. Keeping dangerous people out of society is always the first concern, and then we work on improving our abilities at not locking up people who haven't done anything.

Not only do we have a moral obligation to try our hardest not to send innocent people to prison, you better believe we also have one to deliver a safe and stable society as best we can. Releasing hundreds of dangerous criminals is not particularly conducive to that.
We have the moral obligation to not do evil shit. This whole "muh needs of muh society trumps human rights lol!!" attitude around here is so goddamn tiring.


Dietrich Six | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DietrichSix
IP: Logged

11,784 posts
Excuse me, I'm full of dog poison
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.

It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?

And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.

We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.

Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.
In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."

There are numerous documentaries and newspaper articles that disagree with you.

People have lost jobs, jury members suffer shame and humiliation, individuals have sued for damages and mostly succeed.

We all know it's a terrible thing, but you can't give them their lives back, you can't change the damaging things said. All you can do is apologize and offer what little recompense you can.


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.

It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?

And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.

We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.

Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.
In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."

There are numerous documentaries and newspaper articles that disagree with you.

People have lost jobs, jury members suffer shame and humiliation, individuals have sued for damages and mostly succeed.

We all know it's a terrible thing, but you can't give them their lives back, you can't change the damaging things said. All you can do is apologize and offer what little recompense you can.
As they should. They destroyed someone's life.

And no, we shouldn't offer what little recompense we can. We should make it a big deal. It turns out someone was wrongfully convicted, it should be a scandal. There should be riots, national coverage, public shame for the judge who presided.

Instead people just shrug and say "meh".

"Shit happens", right? That's so disgusting, that people actually think this way. Like it's no big deal. And you know that for every innocent man in jail who's exonerated later, there's dozens more who live and die pleading their innocence.


Dietrich Six | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DietrichSix
IP: Logged

11,784 posts
Excuse me, I'm full of dog poison
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.

It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?

And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.

We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.

Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.
In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."

There are numerous documentaries and newspaper articles that disagree with you.

People have lost jobs, jury members suffer shame and humiliation, individuals have sued for damages and mostly succeed.

We all know it's a terrible thing, but you can't give them their lives back, you can't change the damaging things said. All you can do is apologize and offer what little recompense you can.
As they should. They destroyed someone's life.

And no, we shouldn't offer what little recompense we can. We should make it a big deal. It turns out someone was wrongfully convicted, it should be a scandal. There should be riots, national coverage, public shame for the judge who presided.

Instead people just shrug and say "meh".

"Shit happens", right? That's so disgusting, that people actually think this way. Like it's no big deal. And you know that for every innocent man in jail who's exonerated later, there's dozens more who live and die pleading their innocence.

First of all the judge does nothing but decide punishment. The jury decides guilt. These are every day people who are presented with evidence and have to decide whether or a man or woman is guilty of a crime. Putting them on blast does nothing for the wrongly accused.

Had there been foul play then obviously there should be consequences for those involved, and in most cases this makes national news. It is a scandal, people are punished.

When someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time and is charged with a crime they didn't commit who is to blame? All the evidence points to this person as the guilty party. This is why reasonable doubt is flawed, but it's the best we have.

As for those that plead their innocence that's why we have appeals. DNA evidence allowed hundreds to walk free.

I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 02:21:51 PM by Dietrich Six


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.


Dietrich Six | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DietrichSix
IP: Logged

11,784 posts
Excuse me, I'm full of dog poison
I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.

No one on the jury chose to be there, it's the law. Usually when you accidentally kill someone there's been gross misconduct. Serving on a jury that wrongly accuses someone is not similar at all to killing another person.

And like I said previously that's why our justice system allows for appeals, if they find you guilty ten times in a row chances are you're guilty.


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.

No one on the jury chose to be there, it's the law. Usually when you accidentally kill someone there's been gross misconduct. Serving on a jury that wrongly accuses someone is not similar at all to killing another person.

And like I said previously that's why our justice system allows for appeals, if they find you guilty ten times in a row chances are you're guilty.
Which is why jury duty in the first place should be optional. So many people I know really want to be in a pool but never get the chance.

And please, the appeal rate for violent criminals is remarkably low. Once you get the "criminal" label, that's what people see you as.


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

37,627 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
>locking up criminals
>not just openly shooting them during the crime
Do you faggots even efficiency?


Dietrich Six | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DietrichSix
IP: Logged

11,784 posts
Excuse me, I'm full of dog poison
>locking up criminals
>not just openly shooting them during the crime
Do you faggots even efficiency?

Blood is hard to get out of my booties.


Dietrich Six | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DietrichSix
IP: Logged

11,784 posts
Excuse me, I'm full of dog poison
I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.

No one on the jury chose to be there, it's the law. Usually when you accidentally kill someone there's been gross misconduct. Serving on a jury that wrongly accuses someone is not similar at all to killing another person.

And like I said previously that's why our justice system allows for appeals, if they find you guilty ten times in a row chances are you're guilty.
Which is why jury duty in the first place should be optional. So many people I know really want to be in a pool but never get the chance.

And please, the appeal rate for violent criminals is remarkably low. Once you get the "criminal" label, that's what people see you as.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/

341 cases and counting, and that's just for this single organization.


Yu | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Yutaka
IP: Logged

12,707 posts
Almost always, with moderation
where were you when midge was right
Eating chips and being pleasantly suprised.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✑ πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯ 🌈πŸ‘
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
gaol
why do you spell it that way
It's the 'tradition' English way of spelling it; I used to read a lot of 40K books when I was like 12-13 that spelled it that way, plus my history teacher encouraged us to do it for some fucking reason. So it stuck.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
The quote could be talking about 100,000 guilty men and you'd still be fucked up to disagree with it.

So with about 1.5 million inmates in the US,  an estimated 2.5% of whom are innocent, you would advocate releasing everyone currently incarcerated to give the innocent ones relief?



XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
The quote could be talking about 100,000 guilty men and you'd still be fucked up to disagree with it.

So with about 1.5 million inmates in the US,  an estimated 2.5% of whom are innocent, you would advocate releasing everyone currently incarcerated to give the innocent ones relief?
There's a point where even I would concede to doing immoral things, when they have to be done. That doesn't make the act any less wrong on a moral scale, but it's a necessary atrocity to prevent full-on chaos, which would be unjust towards the rest of the country. The real problem is how those 2.5% people who are in prison for something they never did got there in the first place.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
The real problem is how those 2.5% people who are in prison for something they never did got there in the first place.

So would you agree that the premise in the OP is a bit hyperbolic and maybe doesn't reflect the actual problem you have with the justice system?


aREALgod | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: aTALLmidget
IP: Logged

5,169 posts
 
Congrats, now those 100 or 100,000 scumbags go on to kill and rape and rob thousands of others! You just contaminated the world with filth, all becuz "HURRR MUH MORALS LOL!"

It is far better to send one innocent to prison than to let free the whole fucking prison block. Shit happens boo hoo. If sending one innocent prison away every now and then ensures a safe society, then I will celebrate that man's sacrifice for the greater good of us all.
Criminals being allowed to commit more crimes before eventually rounded up and caught isn't nearly as bad as putting one person in prison for no reason. "Shit happens." Go to hell if that's really your goddamn mindset. A safe, immoral society is worse than an unsafe, moral society.

Wrong.


15321598721 | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Baha
IP: Logged

1,094 posts
 
Convicting an innocent person does not generate negative infinity utility does anyone actually think that or are they just cool with rolling with hyperbolic statements to show support for an underlying sentiment


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
Convicting an innocent person does not generate negative infinity utility does anyone actually think that or are they just cool with rolling with hyperbolic statements to show support for an underlying sentiment
Morality > utility


15321598721 | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Baha
IP: Logged

1,094 posts
 
Convicting an innocent person does not generate negative infinity utility does anyone actually think that or are they just cool with rolling with hyperbolic statements to show support for an underlying sentiment
Morality > utility
what are you even trying to say
do you just like sticking with the vaguer phrasing of a position to try to make it less obvious that it's ridiculous


like I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think they really believe that, and therefore there is in reality always a tradeoff
Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 12:46:25 AM by Baha


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
Convicting an innocent person does not generate negative infinity utility does anyone actually think that or are they just cool with rolling with hyperbolic statements to show support for an underlying sentiment
Morality > utility
what are you even trying to say
do you just like sticking with the vaguer phrasing of a position to try to make it less obvious that it's ridiculous


like I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think they really believe that, and therefore there is in reality always a tradeoff
You didn't even bring up the ethical consequences of ruining an innocent person's life, just the utility of it. Utility doesn't matter here.


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.
Not really. A criminal not being in jail is a far less immoral state than an innocent person being in jail.


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.
Not really. A criminal not being in jail is a far less immoral state than an innocent person being in jail.
So what if they're all bloodthirsty killers who are very likely to go back out and just slaughter a bunch of people?


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.
Not really. A criminal not being in jail is a far less immoral state than an innocent person being in jail.
So what if they're all bloodthirsty killers who are very likely to go back out and just slaughter a bunch of people?
You can recapture criminals, issue a public alert, put cities under lockdown. You can't unruin the life of someone who was wrongfully convicted. "Exoneration packages" are a joke.


15321598721 | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Baha
IP: Logged

1,094 posts
 
Convicting an innocent person does not generate negative infinity utility does anyone actually think that or are they just cool with rolling with hyperbolic statements to show support for an underlying sentiment
Morality > utility
what are you even trying to say
do you just like sticking with the vaguer phrasing of a position to try to make it less obvious that it's ridiculous


like I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think they really believe that, and therefore there is in reality always a tradeoff
You didn't even bring up the ethical consequences of ruining an innocent person's life, just the utility of it. Utility doesn't matter here.
ruining a person's life does not entail an infinite quantity of negative "ethical consequence"
failing to stop a criminal entails a non-zero quantity of negative "ethical consequence"
therefore, there is always a trade off

why insist on the worse way to phrase it
Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 11:29:29 AM by Baha


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.
Not really. A criminal not being in jail is a far less immoral state than an innocent person being in jail.
So what if they're all bloodthirsty killers who are very likely to go back out and just slaughter a bunch of people?
You can recapture criminals, issue a public alert, put cities under lockdown. You can't unruin the life of someone who was wrongfully convicted. "Exoneration packages" are a joke.
This is obviously under the assumption that they succeed in doing harm while they're out If you let out 100 killers, let's give a low estimate and say ten of them go out and kill two people. Twenty dead? The repercussions for friends and family is disgusting, and I don't know if I'm comfortable arguing it's not worth screwing someone over. 


Gatortag | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL: Josh55886
PSN: Josh55886
Steam: Gatortag
ID: Josh55886
IP: Logged

1,507 posts
 
Can't say I agree. It would depend. I'm not letting a bunch of murderers go to save one person. If  you ask me. With the large amount of prisoners in the US, there's a way to save us all time, space, and money. It's harsh, but people would get used to it. I want prisons to line up all the people they have convicted of murder out in the prison yard. I don't care if it's a line of 100 people. Put a bullet in their heads, all of them. Problem solved. If you're a murderer you don't deserve to live. Fuck getting 10 years or some life sentence. No. A life for a life.


XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,018 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
β€”Judge Aaron Satie
β€”β€”Carmen
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.
Not really. A criminal not being in jail is a far less immoral state than an innocent person being in jail.
So what if they're all bloodthirsty killers who are very likely to go back out and just slaughter a bunch of people?
You can recapture criminals, issue a public alert, put cities under lockdown. You can't unruin the life of someone who was wrongfully convicted. "Exoneration packages" are a joke.
This is obviously under the assumption that they succeed in doing harm while they're out If you let out 100 killers, let's give a low estimate and say ten of them go out and kill two people. Twenty dead? The repercussions for friends and family is disgusting, and I don't know if I'm comfortable arguing it's not worth screwing someone over.
I'd rather be caviler about criminals doing crimes than about the government doing them. The way people sweep wrongful incarceration under the rug sickens me. Like it's some necessary evil, so that makes it completely non tragic or tear inducing. It's just the cost of living in a democracy, that some people get their lives, names, reputations, and memory destroyed. And when it's proven they were innocent the whole time, it's not even local news. Just give them money and bitch at them if they still have the audacity to complain.