You be the Judge

[L.O.A.S.]

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Is it worse to let a criminal go free on a technicality, or wrongly imprison an innocent person. Do you feel that no innocent should ever get prosecuted/punished, irregardless of the consequences to society (having more criminals on the street due to holes in the system), or do you agree with Mr. Spock that the “Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one”.
Lets say our justice system is calibrated such that an innocent person could never ever get wrongly punished, at the cost of a number of criminals getting off due to holes in the system (each of whom can go on to commit more crimes). If you could tweak the justice system, how would you change the burdens of proof required to put/keep criminals in jail. What to you think the current ratio of criminals released (due to some bogus reason) versus innocents wrongly jailed is? 1000:1, 10000:1, 100000:1. What is an acceptable ratio to you? Just curious.

[Soldier]

I'd say 1,000:1 sounds acceptable. If the justice system were perfect, such that we could be assured not one person was wrongly imprisoned...I guess I could take technicalities, for perfection. But if we can't have perfection, then no, tighten it up and risk having a few innocents in there.

[keith]

Sorry, but what utter nonsense. As there are no knowable odds in the process it is clearly safer to lock everyone up just in case.

Sarcasm aside there is a real error involved in the reasoning; if an innocent person is imprisoned then a guilty one is free. We are in more danger if the police & courts are encouraged to find the most likely guilty party. So you can either have a justice system where there is a presumption of innocence and a heavy burden is placed on the prosecution to win its case or you can shift to allowing hearsay, uncoroborated evidence and limited cross examination of prosecution witnesses etc etc ad nauseam.

This problem of the guilty being free could be solved by making it possible to have multiple people imprisoned for the same crime, just in case .

[Soldier]

What? Vandalism? Quick, lock up all the epeeists!

[Bayou Bum]

It is worse to imprison an innocent person than to let a criminal go free, but in order to guarantee that no innocent person was ever imprisoned, we would have to let everyone out of prison, for it is certain that there are innocent people currently in prison. No matter what number you may choose, you should always remember that you may be the 1.

[Philistine]

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Is it worse to let a criminal go free on a technicality, or wrongly imprison an innocent person. {snip}

Those really aren't the things to compare, because letting criminals go on "technicalities" isn't done (in most situations) to preserve the presumption of innocence--it's done as a response to some improper action (usually by law enforcement) to act as a disincentive. Usually what's being protected is some other right.

As an example, the police conduct an improper warrantless search--but find drugs. Evidence of the drugs will not be allowed to be introduced, not because you're erring on the side of the presumption of innocence, but to keep the police from doing improper warrantless searches in the future.

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

The aphorism is merely a glib way of stating the more complex concept that, before permitting the government to exercise its penal power to take away a person's life, liberty or property, we want to make certain that the government has both (1) proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt, however, as that is impossible; just beyond any doubt that is reasonable in light of the evidence) and (2) not violated the constitutional and statutory protections against government abuses, such as those set forth in the Bill of Rights as interpreted by centuries of jurisprudence. Necessarily, the rights and protections are subject to a balancing test: the state's interest in public safety outweighs the individual right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, for example. The process is designed to ensure that the end result is an official version of events that is as close to the truth as humanly possible (the verdict) and that the government did not overstep the authority given to it by the citizenry in reaching that conclusion and acting upon it.

By forcing the government to dot its "I"s and cross its "T"s, to protect not only the innocent but the entire citizenry from abuse of governmental power, by necessity some criminals will not be caught, and some of those who are caught will not be convicted.

But we are prepared to accept the fact that some guilty people go free, unjustly, as a result of our attempt to minimize the unjust punishment of the innocent and to minimize government overreaching.

In other words, one kind of injustice is preferable to another kind of injustice.

Or, put more glibly, better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent to go to jail.

[L.O.A.S.]

But we are prepared to accept the fact that some guilty people go free, unjustly, as a result of our attempt to minimize the unjust punishment of the innocent and to minimize government overreaching.

In other words, one kind of injustice is preferable to another kind of injustice.

Or, put more glibly, better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent to go to jail.

Good summary of our justice system, and I do agree with the principle. Still...lets take an extreme example.
Suppose there are 10000 homicide cases a year in the USA, of which 50% goes unsolved, 30% leads to convictions, and 20% are dismissed (for various reasons). Of the 3000 killers sent to jail, lets suppose one person is unjustly sentenced. Of the 2000 supposed killers let go, lets say 500 go on to commit other murders ( I am assuming these people would not show the same restraint as OJ).
Now lets say the law is tightened up (or the burden of proof rules loosened), for every 10000 homicides, 50% still goes unsolved, 40% lead to convictions and 10% are dismissed. Of the 4000 killers sent to jail, there is now 2 unjustly sentenced men. I would agree that one innocent mans life is not worth sending 1000 extra criminals to jail, but is it worth the many lives that would be saved by those people being in jail?
Why do you only hear about acceptable losses in terms of military objectives? I agree with Bayou Bum that it would suck to be the one. Still, would it ease the pain a little to know that your "sacrifice" ultimately means a safer society for others?

[Philistine]

{snip} Why do you only hear about acceptable losses in terms of military objectives?

Because it's quantifiable.

As opposed to a guilt or innocence issue, where it's generally not.

--Philistine

[Maeve_Mari]

If you allow room for imperfection in your performance you'll exceed your expectations. You can't substitute one or two innocents as a deviation from focusing on perfecting the prosecutorial and incarceration processes.

I'd rather we made sure we had the right guy instead of picking up a few extra and hoping they'll land back on their feet later.

A story: A friend of mine's husband worked at an IT company doing software evaluations and testing. This was years ago, before the big coming of telecommuting, but this guy was a geek from the get-go, and would take the materials home with him at night to keep working after dinner. One evening as he was leaving the office, the security guards stopped him and told him he had to wait for the police to come. He was being arrested for stealing from the company. Confusion, dismay, questioning set in and weeks later this guy found out that he was being accused of swiping some motherboards and chipsets some weeks earlier. Problem is, this guy didn't test motherboards and hadn't ever brought any of them home. He had a couple manuals and a copy or two of some software he was evaluating for the company at home, but that was about it. Months, then years went by as this man and his wife showed up at court for preliminary hearings, meetings with his attorney, sessions with specialists. Tens of thousands of dollars and three years later, the case was dismissed because, quite frankly there was never any indication that this man stole anything. The company dropped the issue with the only explanation of, "We know somebody stole this stuff, we thought that who it was would come out before we got this far."

[Soldier]

...which has what to do with this topic? That's the system working and an innocent man getting off. Company paranoia's something else entirely.

[Maeve_Mari]

...which has what to do with this topic? That's the system working and an innocent man getting off. Company paranoia's something else entirely.

He was picked up in a sweeping. The company didn't know who did the stealing so they just had him picked up... it was easier that way. And it wasn't just company paranoia, the legal system failed him too. After the initial accusation, it was the sheriff's office that took over the innappropriate action against this guy.

He was "incarcerated" in his defense preparation and by the multiple hearings and court appearances, he was unemployed and unemployable during this ordeal, and they spent over $40,000 (they didn't have) in legal fees during the three years. He didn't do anything wrong, he was released. Ooops, we have the wrong guy.

It has alot to do with this topic. The only difference is that he wasn't a murderer and his incarceration wasn't in jail.

[Soldier]

Fair 'nuff.

[Larrison]

Hmm... in his case, I wonder why he didn't countersue? In a couple of similar cases I am aware of, when the people pressing the suit dropped it, the defendant's attorney immediately appealed to the judge for a settlement to include coverage of legal costs, plus damages. Usually the judge pulls the attorneys into his chambers, the issue of "malicious prosecution" is discussed, and a settlement is quickly reached.

In this case, if there never was any evidence of wrongdoing, and they stretched it out for 3 years, I'd countersue for damages and legal costs. Odds are the original folks who pushed the case will settle *fast* since they don't want their name coming out for such sleazy or sloppy business practices.

[rmyounis]

Heres a related question: What is the criminal justice system for?

Do we lock up criminals because we don't trust them not to commit more crimes (and therefore imprison them as a method of isolating them from the rest of us)?
Do we lock them up to teach them that they have done something wrong, and to reform the individuals? To punish them for violating a code of right behavior? To punish them for the sake of the victim/s of the crime, as a form of state legitimized revenge?

I mean, my rudimentary understanding of legal philosophy is that there are lots of reasons we put people in jail, but I'm wondering which of them you guys think ought to be taken as most important, and why.

[Soldier]

License plates.

And picnic tables.

These are why we lock criminals away.

[L.O.A.S.]

Because it's quantifiable.

As opposed to a guilt or innocence issue, where it's generally not.

--Philistine

I am not talking about trying to quantify something like guilt or innocence. There are hard statistics out there for the number of murders/convictions/crimes by repeat offenders/dismissals etc. The only thing you would not know is the number of wrongly convicted people.
I'm talking about tweaking the system to make convictions go up, repeat crimes (in this I mean crimes by people who otherwise would have gone free) go down, while balancing this all with the possibity that some innocents as well as some of our rights/protections would suffer (acceptable loss).

Now you mentioned in an earlier post about an illegal search turning up drugs. That scenario does not concern me, since I don't keep anything of interest that an illegal search would turn up. Can someone give me an example of how reduction in our rights (in the interest of reducing crime) could lead to a situation that would concern me (as a law abiding citizen).

[Maeve_Mari]

Hmm... in his case, I wonder why he didn't countersue? In a couple of similar cases I am aware of, when the people pressing the suit dropped it, the defendant's attorney immediately appealed to the judge for a settlement to include coverage of legal costs, plus damages. Usually the judge pulls the attorneys into his chambers, the issue of "malicious prosecution" is discussed, and a settlement is quickly reached.

In this case, if there never was any evidence of wrongdoing, and they stretched it out for 3 years, I'd countersue for damages and legal costs. Odds are the original folks who pushed the case will settle *fast* since they don't want their name coming out for such sleazy or sloppy business practices.

Countersue was the first thing they tried to do. At that time, in that place, under those circumstances, the attorney they consulted told them that in the malicious prosecution suit they would have to "prove innocence" in order to win any award for this, since no evidence (of guilt or innocence) had ever been presented in the court. The attorney told them that it would be a difficult and potentially drawn out effort and advised them against the suit. Weary from their three years of hell, they let it go.

[Maeve_Mari]

Can someone give me an example of how reduction in our rights (in the interest of reducing crime) could lead to a situation that would concern me (as a law abiding citizen).

Here's one:

You have the right to privacy. You can select books, magazines, newspapers to read of any topic or source you want. In the interest of reducing crime, your town leadership decides that knowing what its citizenry is subscribing to and reading could help them keep a better handle on preventing crime. So an requirement, which reduces your right to privacy is passed, that declares for now on, any and all reading material in everyone's home must now be listed and posted on their home's front door and also published on the community bulletin boards.

You're still a law abiding citizen. You may even read only mainstream magazines, but how do you feel about letting your neighbors and town leaders know your reading selections.

Say you still have a fondness for that crazy Mad Magazine - sure you're 42 years old now, but it's just an enjoyable read you haven't been able to part with yet.

Or maybe that Martha Stewart isn't such a bad gal, you enjoy her stories about fresh lettuce from her garden, but you don't want the boys down at the club to know you read her Living Magazine.

How about, as a prank your old college roomate signed you up for a lifetime subscription to Pravda that arrives every week in your mailbox? Would you like to come down to the station house for some questioning Mr. LOAS?

or Janes, or ArmySargent Today, or Sesame Street Highlights, or Mother Jones, or NORML News Reports?

[L.O.A.S.]

How about, as a prank your old college roomate signed you up for a lifetime subscription to Pravda that arrives every week in your mailbox? Would you like to come down to the station house for some questioning Mr. LOAS?

Shortly before I was hired at my current job, a person got into trouble for doing this to our head boss at the time. Of course, he was very disguntled (and going through many personal issues) and he did not send pravda, but rather something more embarrassing for a married heterosexual male to receive. He ended up commiting suicide (in the office). Glad I wasn't there yet.