For most of human history, we human primates have believed that where there is smoke there is fire. An ensuing transcription of the conversation bore no resemblance to what the expert witness had claimed. Find in a Library You have clicked. I can understand that and for the most part agree with it. Crucially, however, to the extent that individual crimes induce citizens to believe, truly or falsely, that burglaries are becoming more frequent, law-abiding citizens may suffer from fear of being burglarized as well, incurring further costs of preventive measures to reduce the likelihood of victimization. I believe this quote means that it is wrong to let an innocent man go to jail for something he did not commit and be punished for someone else's wrong doing even if it means letting 10 other guilty men free. But when it actually happens, hardly anybody reacts according to what they say.
Retribution is not a tort action. If you let 100 murderers go free, and they kill 100 more people, is that really worse than jailing someone innocent? With that reasoning I fully agree with Blackstone. 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. The noble bivus Trajan wrote to Julius Frontonus that no man should be condemned on a criminal charge in his absence, because it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent. This recognises a tradeoff, a balancing act, and the impossibility of perfection.
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? If their obligation to punish the guilty is as strong as their obligation not to punish the innocent, then failure at the first obligation is as bad as failure at the second. Still, we should be able to agree on the fact that false acquittals, no less than false convictions, are moral harms that officials of the criminal justice system have undertaken an obligation to avoid, at least if everything else is kept constant. The same challenge faces a libertarian who accepts the presumption of innocence because it is more compatible with a minimal state. This approach though does not come from a justification of virtue or righteous philosophy, but rather simply because it is more practical as a means of making a society which protects freedoms functional. He can easily move out of its way, but realizes that if he does so the rock will gain momentum and kill a group of small deaf children further down the hill. The attitude of most people is that if someone is charged with a crime they are guilty. It derives from English common law.
My responsability as a member of the jury would be totally limited to the case presented to me. Still, I think it is difficult to explain why the value of fairness should override the aggregate costs of acquitting guilty suspects without to some extent invoking the Roman doctrine. I believe that the quote's meaning is stating that in moderation those who have not commited a crime should not have to suffer under any circumstances, and the quote states it would be more logical to have 10 people who have commited crimes to escape than punish an individual who is in innocent. I Believe that People who commit a crime should suffer the consequences and not let the man who has committed no crimes take the fall. In other words, let's say yo … u are asked an uncomfortable or awkward question about your plans, and you feel it is none of the other person's business. Greenleaf traces this presumption to Deuteronomy, and quotes Mascardus De Probationibus to show that it was substantially embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens.
Professor Zellick, a professor of law at University College London, cited the wrongful conviction of the solicitor Sally Clark, 42, as an example of the consequences of judicial reluctance to free immediately an innocent victim of a miscarriage. The more you go to those extremes, the less successful the government. The rock hits and seriously injures him. Our government and society has to take every factor into account. For the poor, powerless and dispossessed — the people most likely to fall through the cracks of justice created by this ruling — it is proof that a portion of the court thinks their lives are expendable. However, there is much moral significance attached to the number 10 rather than, say, the number 42, and it is not as straightforward to explain why it is better, or less bad.
The first time, not to justify it, was a fluke - a crime of passion. Which is worse - punishing the innocent, or letting the guilty go free? Still, even in cases in which it does make sense to say that a certain act occurred with a 90 percent or 95 percent probability, we seem to be disinclined to convict. Alan Dershowitz, the well-known defense attorney and Harvard law professor, presents his students with the following case. I personally believe that punishing the innocent is the worst that you can do. Most of the statements must be lies. Consider the massive butthurt when O.
Thus, it is for the prosecutor, and not for the accused, to establish, in public, the truth of that belief beyond reasonable doubt. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. If you punish a single innocent individual, then by definition, you've already let the guilty party go free. According to Thomson, the stringency of a claim, or a corresponding duty, must be taken to vary with the harm that is inflicted on the claim holder whenever his claim is infringed. That would be compounding the problem, so wouldn't make for a very sensical question. In the technical terms of statistics, false convictions are analogous to what are called Type 1 errors, the error of coming to accept a false theory by way of rejecting a true, so-called null hypothesis. But the failure of state officials to punish the guilty cannot get an automatic moral discount because it is an omission.
State officials have, they rightly insist, pre-existing obligations both to acquit the innocent and to punish the guilty. Let me offer an example of this idea: Smith's harmful action, the intentional, unjustified and inexcusable killing of Jones. Unlike the child's death in the first version, the child's death in the second version would not have happened anyway. But let's parse out what you have argued. I Agree with what Blackstone is saying and is the morally right thing to do.