This has been debated many times but I don't remember seeing it on here so I thought I would put it on here. Personally I can not choose between the two because they are equal in my view.

I'd let 100 guilty men go free.

Well it kinda depends on what they are guilty for.
If they were murderers I'd definetly jail one person. If they were thieves that don't hurt anyone it would be a hard choice.
Now of course nobody wants to be that one good person who goes to jail, but I think one life is expendable. 100 murderers can kill thousands of people. I don't think the safety of one life is worth the death of thousands of others. Plus is that peson would t of went to jail then they might of gotten killed by the 100 guilty people.

this is one of the hardest questions i have to answer , hmmm , i think i rather jail one innocent man , also you did not mention how many days to jail the innocent man , so i would jail him for 1 day .

supercool22 : the sentence would be life in jail without parole, same goes for the guilty men and their crimes would reflect the crime rates in the usa.

People seem to be misunderstanding the nature of this question by adding specific circumstances to it when there are none. It's a matter of cost-benefit analysis and moral compass. It's a very powerful question.

By jailing the innocent man, you have effectively undermined the justice system this country's set in place and violated the very essence of justice in and of itself. I could not stand for that, especially knowing that the man is innocent. I mean, to look at an innocent man, directly in the eyes, and tell him that he's going to jail... I just couldn't do it. I know what it feels like to be wronged, especially when you're completely innocent, and I would not wish that pain on any person.

As it stands for allowing 100 guilty men out of jail, their freedom does not guarantee they will do the crime they committed again, nor does it guarantee they won't. Even if they did commit their crimes, their crimes are on their own hands, not mine, even if people think it is on my hands. I would be completely comfortable with myself because I know that one innocent man did not have to suffer because I lacked the fortitude to do what I feel is right.

This is a really hard questions. I could argue both points just about as equal as the other. Personally, I believe that it really depends on what they are in there for. It it's 100 guilty men of murder, rape, pedophiles, etc, I would choose to jail one innocent man. Although, if it was 100 men that committed something such as Tax Fraud, Scamming, or Unarmed Theft, I think it would not be too bad to let them go.

I do have a problem with jailing an innocent man in some cases though. If they were very successful at life, it would be hard to jail them for no reason because they have not gone anywhere wrong (Along the lines of law) and they do not deserve to go to prison. On the other hand, if the innocent man happened to be homeless, I almost think that it would almost be better than what they would be going through at the moment. They would be sheltered as well as having food every day.

This all comes down onto what the circumstances are. Although, if there are no circumstances, I would choose to jail the one innocent man. There is no need to have 100 guilty men back on the streets when they haven't served their sentence. Also, it's not like an innocent man hasn't been sent to prison before.

Since I am the judge, jury and executioner I'd go with option 3, execute all 101 of them then cap myself in head for having the worlds most messed up justice system.

If you let 100 prisoners go then you go out of business.
If you lock 1 prisoner up you still will also go out of business.

You only mentioned 101 people so its either an empty jail or a jail with 1 prisoner in it. More importantly, shouldn't you be judging crimes of each individual? This sounds more like a question in math or business class then a question about moral ethics.

Neither option is moral as its using the judgement of a business man or math teacher who is trying to figure out the best way to go bankrupt.

Oldschool41 : JigSaw: I explained above that their crimes reflect the actuall crime rates in the USA so it is a realy cross section of usa society. Also this is a philosophical question so it is just as pray75 says but seen as most people seem to neglect this fact I will add some circumstances that shouldn't tip the argument either way.

When I see this, it reminds me of the quote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"
I think I have to jail the one innocent man, if it means stopping 100 guilty men go free. Who could potentially commit their crimes again and harm more people.

However, I could also put an argument down for letting the 100 men go free. When it comes down to what is fair and right for that one man, I could spare him the jail time. And put all of my faith into the justice system, in the hopes that should I let these 100 men go free, they would be able to catch them again safely with no harm coming to anybody, if they were to commit crimes again. I had a good think about this, but I think if it was me in the moment, I would jail the one man.

Jail the one person. Sorry man, but those guilty people will go kill more people. 

I would rather, as shameful as it is, jail one innocent person for a short period and then let them go. It is way better than letting 100 possible murderers, rapists or robbers go back into the world and do what they did to get into jail in the first place, that is really bad, and it puts way to many more innocent people at risk and danger of being killed or robbed or worse. So as bad as it is to jail one innocent man, it is better than letting 100 guilty ones free to harm so many more. I would try to let the innocent man go if I could.

JigSaw : You are right on a lot of points, either way the jail is near empty with only one prisoner there, so it would go out of business anyway.

Anyway, if possible I would try to free the 1 innocent man as soon as I could. And really it depends on what the 100 men did to get their that can determine if they are worthy enough to be freed, otherwise I would rather keep them there to pay for what they have done.


Oldschool: That wouldn't be easy to do, trying to keep tabs on 100 people all at once isn't easy, and they will probably kill alot of people buy the time you re-arrest them, and they will probably hard to track down anyways.

I still like how we're trying to set stipulations that's supposed to be a philosophical question. Lol! I guess it can't be helped, as we want the best for all in the situation. It at least tells me that you guys are moral people!

I would class this question as a loss loss situation.
On one hand you've got justice and on the other hand you have unfairness.
The thing is, you shouldn't have to choose here. People should do the right decision from the start. Okay yes that isn't easy and I know that, but judge the person. Not the crime.

i would let 100 guilty men go free only i would feel really bad for the innocent guy.

I don't think anyone is innocent.
I would like to "shoot them all and let God sort them out." (Marge Simpson.) Jokes aside...

What was an innocent doing in the middle of a crime?
How did the innocent one become apart of the scene?

I am not the biggest fan of the Legal Departments Police but I respect the Job they do and the good they do.
I respect the risks they take and the service my taxes pay for.

The Lawyers and the Judges have their jobs too. I respect them as well.

The Process Takes a long time and a ton of money.
If it was not effective?
We would have done away with it years ago.

A long time ago I was ready to entertain an idea of there may be an innocent or two in jail.
Now???
I have little to no such ideas in my head.

I believe there are way too many ways to be chained to a job these days. I think that every time a person gets a little ahead in life something always comes up to put them in their former place.
Always.

That was before the silly recession.
Now???
With half a nation out of work (they took the crappy job away too.)???
What do they stand to loose???
What could hold them back from crime???

The Word Innocent Can No Longer Exist In The Reality I wake Up To Every Day.

Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

orionfoxgibson : I think this was the best response of everything I've seen on this thread so far... Lol! Something I never thought about anyways, what if the jail they're in all of the sudden went over capacity?

Come to think of it, I'm wondering if this question is a bit flawed. You would jail the one man and let the 100 go free, right? Or you would keep the 100 men in jail and let the innocent man stay free. I think if you jailed the one man without the 100 going free, then the entire point of this is moot, as the innocent man just stays in jail with the 100, possibly finding himself in a bit of trouble. And likewise, if you just let the 100 free, then you've really let them out for no reason... Kind of defeats the purpose of this! I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Especially because I'm extremely tired at this point in time, so I'm surprised that I thought of it just now. At any rate, good answer, orionfoxgibson! lol

Jail the one 'innocent' man. It happens all the time in society anyways, whether it be in literal or metaphorical terms, Nya~.

I wouldnt make the call.
If i were in that position and i knew the man was innocent then why would i be jailing him.
If i knew he was innocent but he was found guilty at trial, well i cant help you, jail you go.
I understand the question is hypothetical but i just cant see anyway this would arise.
And i strongly disagree with there being no innocents.
Maybe everyone is guilty of soemthing but there is such a thing as the right time for the right crime. you cant give someone 7 years on a charge of grievous bodily harm when they didnt do it, even if in the past they have robbed or littered the streets. You dont know they did that and they are innocent until proven guilty, thats guaranteed by every democratic nation the world over.
If you believe that then you have no right to protest the day you are arrested for something you didnt do.
I read most replys to this thread and that was the most naive suggestion I saw.
That is complete authorisation for the systematic destruction of democracy, or what little we already have left of it.