|
|
|
|
|
by gernb
1383 days ago
|
|
repeating myself but > ts better to let 10 criminals get away with it than to convict 1 innocent person. is arguably false. it forgets that 10 criminals had 10 or more victims. If you optimize for the least number of victims then it's easily possible that convicting a few innocent people has a net positive in lowering the total number of victims including the victims of being wrongly convicted to put it another way, perfect is the enemy of good. In this case if in pursuit of perfection of having zero wrongly convicted you end up causing more victims of criminals then you've arguably failed |
|
I also believe that it’s better to let 10 criminals get away with it than it is to wrongly convict 1 innocent person. And I’m fairly sure that all the innocent people who were unfortunate enough to go through the court system would agree with me.
Also, not every crime must have a victim. There are a million victimless crimes.
Yes, it’s also debatable whether those should even be crimes (in my opinion - no), but the argument that 1 crime = at least 1 victim is flat out false.