mojobluesman
11-29-2005, 01:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to murder suspects, we set the standard of proof high enough so that acquitted guilty suspects far outnumber convicted innocent subjects. Because, as bad as it is to let a murderer walk the streets, it is even worse to send an innocent man to his death or a life in prison.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've always wondered about the mathematics of this.
Suppose statistics indicate that murderers we let free because of the high standards of proof wind up killing many more innocent victims while free than society would have wrongly imprisoned and killed by lowering the standards?
If we convict and execute one innocent man is that worse than letting a guilty one go that kills 3 innocents?
Just asking for the thought process that leads to the quote above as being clear cut!
When it comes to murder suspects, we set the standard of proof high enough so that acquitted guilty suspects far outnumber convicted innocent subjects. Because, as bad as it is to let a murderer walk the streets, it is even worse to send an innocent man to his death or a life in prison.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've always wondered about the mathematics of this.
Suppose statistics indicate that murderers we let free because of the high standards of proof wind up killing many more innocent victims while free than society would have wrongly imprisoned and killed by lowering the standards?
If we convict and execute one innocent man is that worse than letting a guilty one go that kills 3 innocents?
Just asking for the thought process that leads to the quote above as being clear cut!