The only problem with this is that it works in reverse. We could put people who haven’t committed a crime in jail on the grounds that they are likely to or it helps society when their in jail.
If it really does help the society, it’s by definition not a problem, but a useful thing to do.
If it really does help the society, it’s by definition not a problem, but a useful thing to do.
I suppose so, under this point of view, but does that make it right? Also note that “helping society” isn’t an exact definition. We will have to draw the line between helping and hurting, and we have already done that with the constitution. We have decided that it is best for society if we don’t put innocent people in jail.
We do put innocent people in prison. If not putting innocent people in prison was the most important thing, we’d have to live without prisons. The tradeoff is there, but it’s easier to be hypocritical about it when it’s not made explicit.
We do our best not to put innocent people in prison. Actually, I should have been more clear: We try to put all criminals in jail, but not innocent people. And there’s something called reasonable doubt.
I don’t think we do our best not to put innocent people in prison. I think we make some efforts to avoid it, but they’re rather half-hearted.
For example, consider government resistance to DNA testing for prisoners. Admittedly, this is about keeping people in prison rather than putting them there in the first place, but I think it’s an equivalent issue, and I assume the major reason for resisting DNA testing is not wanting to find out that the initial reasons for imprisoning people were inadequate.
Also, there’s plea bargaining, which I think adds up to saying that we’d rather put people into prison without making the effort to find out whether they’re guilty.
What do you mean? They did do DNA testing and discovered that dozens of people in prisons actually were innocent.
Also, there’s plea bargaining, which I think adds up to saying that we’d rather put people into prison without making the effort to find out whether they’re guilty.
Thats to make sure that if someone actually is innocent and more evidence comes up later, they can get out rather then rot away for the rest of their lives. Its a good thing.
Everything I’ve read about DNA testing for prisoners has said that it was difficult for them to get the testing done. In some cases, they had to pay for it themselves.
Plea bargaining isn’t just for life sentences.
I’m not sure you understand what plea bargaining is—it means that a suspect accepts a shorter sentence for a lesser accusation in exchange for not taking the risk of getting convicted of a more serious crime at a trial.
If it really does help the society, it’s by definition not a problem, but a useful thing to do.
I suppose so, under this point of view, but does that make it right? Also note that “helping society” isn’t an exact definition. We will have to draw the line between helping and hurting, and we have already done that with the constitution. We have decided that it is best for society if we don’t put innocent people in jail.
We do put innocent people in prison. If not putting innocent people in prison was the most important thing, we’d have to live without prisons. The tradeoff is there, but it’s easier to be hypocritical about it when it’s not made explicit.
We do our best not to put innocent people in prison. Actually, I should have been more clear: We try to put all criminals in jail, but not innocent people. And there’s something called reasonable doubt.
I don’t think we do our best not to put innocent people in prison. I think we make some efforts to avoid it, but they’re rather half-hearted.
For example, consider government resistance to DNA testing for prisoners. Admittedly, this is about keeping people in prison rather than putting them there in the first place, but I think it’s an equivalent issue, and I assume the major reason for resisting DNA testing is not wanting to find out that the initial reasons for imprisoning people were inadequate.
Also, there’s plea bargaining, which I think adds up to saying that we’d rather put people into prison without making the effort to find out whether they’re guilty.
What do you mean? They did do DNA testing and discovered that dozens of people in prisons actually were innocent.
Thats to make sure that if someone actually is innocent and more evidence comes up later, they can get out rather then rot away for the rest of their lives. Its a good thing.
Everything I’ve read about DNA testing for prisoners has said that it was difficult for them to get the testing done. In some cases, they had to pay for it themselves.
Plea bargaining isn’t just for life sentences.
I’m not sure you understand what plea bargaining is—it means that a suspect accepts a shorter sentence for a lesser accusation in exchange for not taking the risk of getting convicted of a more serious crime at a trial.
That’s a flagrant misinterpretation. The OP’s intention was to say that innocent people don’t get put in prison intentionally.