Like if there were 10 men and you knew 9 of them were something horrible like murderers or child rapists and 1 of them was innocent but you didn't know which one was innocent, do you think it would be better to send all 10 men to prison, including the one innocent man, to ensure that the 9 horrible, dangerous men were locked up off the street?

OR

Should all 10 men be set free for the sake of saving the one innocent man, eventhough it means putting 9 horrible dangerous men back out on the street?

Like if there were 10 men and you knew 9 of them were something horrible like murderers or child rapists and 1 of them was innocent but you didn't know which one was innocent, do you think it would be better to send all 10 men to prison, including the one innocent man, to ensure that the 9 horrible, dangerous men were locked up off the street?

OR

Should all 10 men be set free for the sake of saving the one innocent man, eventhough it means putting 9 horrible dangerous men back out on the street?
You gotta think of the NINE bad men that would kill or rape again if you set them free. If you set them all free, you are doing much more harm than good because you are knowingly unleashing nine murderers/rapists onto society. How does that help anyone?

You gotta think of the NINE bad men that would kill or rape again if you set them free. If you set them all free, you are doing much more harm than good because you are knowingly unleashing nine murderers/rapists onto society. How does that help anyone?

I think what he is trying to say is that sometimes innocent
people do end up going to prison unjustly. That is something
that in an ideal world should never happen.

Yeah what I'm saying is, should ONE innocent person be sent to prison for the sake of getting 9 guilty ppl in prison, OR should 9 guilty ppl be set free for the sake of saving 1 innocent person from prison?

This is a question that never needs to be answered in real life.

This is a question that never needs to be answered in real life.

It's hypthetical, to see if ppl think a right end justifies wrong means.

And that sig... REALLY!? :rolleyes:

It's hypthetical, to see if ppl think a right end justifies wrong means.

And that sig... REALLY!? :rolleyes:

Yeah, really. And another thing... Jason Collins is a nothing but a 100% coward.


The truth comes out

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=311686

Yeah, really. And another thing... Jason Collins is a nothing but a 100% coward.


The truth comes out

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=311686


Who?

Like if there were 10 men and you knew 9 of them were something horrible like murderers or child rapists and 1 of them was innocent but you didn't know which one was innocent, do you think it would be better to send all 10 men to prison, including the one innocent man, to ensure that the 9 horrible, dangerous men were locked up off the street?

OR

Should all 10 men be set free for the sake of saving the one innocent man, eventhough it means putting 9 horrible dangerous men back out on the street?

First of all, this is a scenario that has a slim-and-none chance of ever happening and even if it did a DNA test could easily rule the one person out who isn't guilty. If all 10 were asked to voluntarily provide a sample, only the innocent man would be likely to agree since they have nothing to hide while the others will refuse and quake in their boots.

I don't understand how that works really, this is a little OT, but I know many times a kid will accuse an adult of molesting them and the adult will deny it but get convicted anyway and NO DNA test is done.

Wasn't that the case with Michael Jackson? The whole time I was thinking, couldn't they do a DNA test and clear the whole thing up in a second, but they never did.