Innocence vs Guilt

[The Hammer]

This quote is according to the esteemed Voltaire.

What are your thoughts?

Is it best to chance releasing a guilty person, so as not to risk harming the innocent?

What if that person IS guilty, and you know it; but it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would this change your opinion?

 

[Quintessence]

I don't know what it is, but trite quotes like this from so-called famous people just annoy me. Like, we're supposed to take it more seriously because of the mouth it came out of instead of its inherent value as a concept? Nah, cross that. With that crossed, then we're supposed to oversimplify an inherently complex reality in to a single sentence that results in sweeping (over)genrealizations? Nah, cross that too.

I think I'd like the quote better if it read "it is better to risk saving a guilty human than to condemn an innocent one because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself." Something about framing it that way feels more honest. Also, less sexist.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't know what it is, but trite quotes like this from so-called famous people just annoy me. Like, we're supposed to take it more seriously because of the mouth it came out of instead of its inherent value as a concept? Nah, cross that.

Well, I mean it could be taken that way for sure. Although, I find Voltaire was an important writer for his time. And some quotes can stay timeless (whether this is the case is your interpretation). Not sure I see it as trite.

With that crossed, then we're supposed to oversimplify an inherently complex reality in to a single sentence that results in sweeping (over)genrealizations? Nah, cross that too.

It's meant to provoke thought, and discussion in this instance. Not be the answer to anything. Which at least tit did that.

I think I'd like the quote better if it read "it is better to risk saving a guilty human than to condemn an innocent one because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself." Something about framing it that way feels more honest. Also, less sexist.

Sexist?
Man = Mankind = Humankind.

No sexism in there unless one wants to see it. As the etymology of the word mankind and humankind have nothing to do with gender.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think I'd like the quote better if it read "it is better to risk saving a guilty human than to condemn an innocent one because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself." Something about framing it that way feels more honest. Also, less sexist.

Either you misunderstand the quote, or you somehow feel that keeping an innocent man from being executed or releasing a murder to kill again is somehow about one's ego.

If it's neither of these, I'd be interested in the logic behind this statement.

Also, do you think sexism was really the intent behind this quote? Because pointing this out in a quote from the 18th century seems a bit silly to me when women's rights didn't even become a thing until the mid 19th century.

 

[Ella S.]

I think it depends on what precisely is implied by "condemn" and "save" here, and what exactly the person is accused of.

Wikipedia, a tertiary reference source, compiles a list of some common philosophical approaches to sentencing:

Justice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, reparation, and denunciation.

I see retribution as counter-productive and deterrence as ineffective, although that depends on what your ethical framework is and what you think the goals of sentencing should be.

I think rehabilitation is easy to do incorrectly and I think there are some people who simply cannot be rehabilitated. I also question whether we should rehabilitate people for committing crimes that I personally don't view as immoral.

I think incapacitation might be necessary in some extreme cases of serial offenders, but I don't see how it's useful for the majority of criminal behavior that we normally punish. I personally don't feel like my neighbor needs to be kept away from me to save me from them if they're smoking Cuban cigars or watching pirated movies, honestly. Incapacitation for someone like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez makes sense to me, though, on a theoretical level.

I favor reparation in theory, not just for criminal offenses but also for social ones. Is that not what apologizing, doing better, and "making it up" to someone entails?

Denunciation is something that I personally see as misguided when it's applied to a person rather than a specific action or idea. I think it's too essentialist and robs human agency of its nuances. I also think it can be rather redundant.

So for retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, I think it would be best to not condemn anyone, regardless of their guilt.

For incapacitation, I think it depends on the severity of the associated risk, in theory. In practice, I think enforcing incapacitation through a centralized institution probably worsens systemic oppression and becomes a dangerous outlet for political corruption. If that's the only option we have, then I think it's probably safer to have the rare serial offender running loose than an entire prison industrial complex.

For reparation, I think what's most important is that the injury is remedied. I'm not so sure that it's necessary to force the person who committed the crime to be the one to repair the damages to begin with, although I think we should be willing to take that responsibility upon ourselves when we recognize our wrongdoing.

So I think that, in most cases, I agree, although I do think there are a few exceptions.

 

[JustGeorge]

View attachment 84074

This quote is according to the esteemed Voltaire.

What are your thoughts?

Is it best to chance releasing a guilty person, so as not to risk harming the innocent?

What if that person IS guilty, and you know it; but it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would this change your opinion?

In general, I agree with Voltaire.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I mean it could be taken that way for sure. Although, I find Voltaire was an important writer for his time. And some quotes can stay timeless (whether this is the case is your interpretation). Not sure I see it as trite.

It's meant to provoke thought, and discussion in this instance. Not be the answer to anything. Which at least tit did that.

Oh, certainly - I'd assume you posted it for the sake of discussion. And, for the sake of discussion, I expressed my feelings about trite quotes from supposedly famous humans. I just don't like them, and haven't for... since I can remember, really? It's a me thing, not a you or anyone else thing.

Sexist?
Man = Mankind = Humankind.

No sexism in there unless one wants to see it.

Not true, but also tangential and irrelevant so not gonna say anything more about that. Was just putting some thoughts to pages, no need to read much into it. Was asked for thoughts, and just gave them.

Either you misunderstand the quote, or you somehow feel that keeping an innocent man from being executed or releasing a murder to kill again is somehow about one's ego.

It's interesting you took the remark of "...because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself" as about ego. That's not an interpretation I considered.

If it's neither of these, I'd be interested in the logic behind this statement.

Humans moralize based on subjective values derived from a combination of personal experience and cultural influences. A recognition of that is what is missing from a lot of these trite pithy quotes by supposedly famous humans - an honest recognition of the subjectivity of the judgements behind them and in particular a recognition of the role of emotions when it comes to moralizing in humans. So much of moralizing (and really human behavior just in general) is driven by emotions. In spite of this, that role is often stripped out from consideration in favor of high-minded intellectualized statements divorced of their emotional underpinnings. It's weird, as are humans just in general. Easily the weirdest, most bizarre animal on the planet.

 

[The Hammer]

Not true, but also tangential and irrelevant so not gonna say anything more about that. Was just putting some thoughts to pages.

I find it fairly relevant? Especially, if I'm wrong about the etymology and usage of a word that impacts the implied ethics, no?

" Man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age"

 

[Heyo]

I don't know what it is, but trite quotes like this from so-called famous people just annoy me. Like, we're supposed to take it more seriously because of the mouth it came out of instead of its inherent value as a concept? Nah, cross that.

There is a difference between generated Chopra quotes and famous quotes of famous people. The later are usually the result of much thought and you can read up on the thoughts in their books. I also like to quote some famous people because their formulation of a thought are usually more precise and more parsimonious than what my command of the human languages can produce.

 

[McBell]

I don't know what it is, but trite quotes like this from so-called famous people just annoy me. Like, we're supposed to take it more seriously because of the mouth it came out of instead of its inherent value as a concept? Nah, cross that. With that crossed, then we're supposed to oversimplify an inherently complex reality in to a single sentence that results in sweeping (over)genrealizations? Nah, cross that too.

I think I'd like the quote better if it read "it is better to risk saving a guilty human than to condemn an innocent one because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself." Something about framing it that way feels more honest. Also, less sexist.

"it is better to risk saving a guilty human than to condemn an innocent one because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself" would be all but impossible to read on a bumper sticker

 

[RestlessSoul]

One purpose of the law is to protect the innocent from the evil doer. If an innocent man is punished for a crime he did not commit, then the law becomes the evil doer, and thus the law itself is begins to lose legitimacy.

Therefore the damage to society is potentially far greater when an innocent man is punished, than when a wrongdoer is allowed to go free.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's interesting you took the remark of "...because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself" as about ego. That's not an interpretation I considered.

I don't see another way to interpret it given ego, by definition, is how one feels about oneself in contrast to others.

Humans moralize based on subjective values derived from a combination of personal experience and cultural influences. A recognition of that is what is missing from a lot of these trite pithy quotes by supposedly famous humans - an honest recognition of the subjectivity of the judgements behind them and in particular a recognition of the role of emotions when it comes to moralizing in humans. So much of moralizing (and really human behavior just in general) is driven by emotions. In spite of this, that role is often stripped out from consideration in favor of high-minded intellectualized statements divorced of their emotional underpinnings. It's weird, as are humans just in general. Easily the weirdest, most bizarre animal on the planet.

Where do you see a distinction between judgment based on emotions and ego?

 

[Quintessence]

"it is better to risk saving a guilty human than to condemn an innocent one because doing otherwise makes me feel bad about myself" would be all but impossible to read on a bumper sticker

Right, we gotta keep that one in mind... haha!

Where do you see a distinction between judgment based on emotions and ego?

I'm starting to get the impression that by "ego" you didn't mean a preoccupation with the self, big-headedness, self-centeredness, or narcissism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm starting to get the impression that by "ego" you didn't mean a preoccupation with the self, big-headedness, self-centeredness, or narcissism.

I gave a pretty clear definition in my post...

...given ego, by definition, is how one feels about oneself in contrast to others.

 

[Quintessence]

I gave a pretty clear definition in my post...

Okay, ignore literally everything I've said to you in this thread then. You and I do not share a common usage of the term "ego."

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 84074

This quote is according to the esteemed Voltaire.

What are your thoughts?

Is it best to chance releasing a guilty person, so as not to risk harming the innocent?

What if that person IS guilty, and you know it; but it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would this change your opinion?

Regarding a justice system, I agree with Voltaire,
although I prefer Blackstone's version. There is
more danger posed by a government that finds
conviction easy, than by the criminals who escape
justice (IMO).

Ref...

Blackstone's ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Revoltingest]

And then there is the Chief Wiggum Ratio.