MrsMree

A wise woman shared something with me which caused me to think about my position more and this is what I have come to: Assuming that both crimes are not "victimless crimes" but that both crimes have a victim and assuming that both crimes have a perpetrator and that neither are accidents - in the scenario of an innocent person (man or woman) wrongly convicted there are two victim, the victim of the crime and the innocent person. In the scenario of a guilty person (man or woman) wrongly acquitted there is one victim, victim of the crime. I believe that between the victim of the crime and the innocent person wrongly gaoled, neither is a greater victim than the other. However I believe the scenario of an innocent person wrongly convicted is worse than the scenario of a guilty person wrongly acquitted because it involves two victims. I don't intend to vote in the poll.

I vote "neither". I just can't imagine how one is worse than the other they both seem completely awful to me. For an innocent person to be in gaol for something they didn't do (and I know a man who has been wrongly convicted) it's awful for them and hard on the family and friends. For a guilty person to go free is awful for the victim and their family as they see no justice. There is potential for damage to the innocent person in gaol, and damage to the victim if a guilty person is set free. Society is adversely affected by having guilty people on the loose and adversely effected by the loss of the innocent person shut up in gaol. The victim might be able to forgive the guilty person but in the same way the innocent person might be able to forgive those responsible for their incarceration. So I really can't see how one is worse than the other.