Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:38:29 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:34:37 PM

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."

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:43:20 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:38:29 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:34:37 PM

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.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:03:52 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:43:20 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:38:29 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:34:37 PM

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.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:20:58 PM

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.

>locking up criminals
>not just openly shooting them during the crime
Do you faggots even efficiency?

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:37:36 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 02:26:00 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:20:58 PM

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.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 19, 2016, 01:46:31 PM

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.

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 10:33:52 AM

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.

Quote from: aSMARTfeminist on April 19, 2016, 12:01:17 PM

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.

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

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 12:37:21 AM

Quote from: Baha on April 22, 2016, 12:35:01 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:04:33 AM

Quote from: Winy on April 22, 2016, 10:00:20 AM

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.

Quote from: Winy on April 22, 2016, 10:07:43 AM

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:04:33 AM

Quote from: Winy on April 22, 2016, 10:00:20 AM

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. 

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

Quote from: Winy on April 22, 2016, 10:07:43 AM

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:04:33 AM

Quote from: Winy on April 22, 2016, 10:00:20 AM

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.