Hmmmm... let me do the math on this one. Are you testing my native intelligence?

Well I wouldn't want either fate but if you think about it, either way, the man who committed the crime is still free to go.

Assuming we're not going to add things to this, like 'but what if it's a serial killer?' then I believe the former is worse. A guilty person may experience enough remorse over their crime to never contemplate doing anything similar again, and conceivably have their conscience punish them as much as/more than a prison term, but an innocent person does time they don't deserve and has their life wasted for no cause or reason. Both are injustices, but I think the former outweighs the latter.

an innacent men, because he would spend his days being punish wile the other guy is free as a bird

an innacent men, because he would spend his days being punish wile the other guy is free as a bird

an innacent men, because he would spend his days being punish wile the other guy is free as a bird

My opinion is that it is worse to send an innocent man to prison. Yes, a criminal being set free is bad but they most likely will repeat and end up where they belong. We have many "criminals" in the world who go uncaught as it is .. so to think all criminals are locked up is wishful thinking.. to think that we lock up innocents.. is Wrong with a capital W. Here in Florida.. a child molestor was out on bail/bond after like his third offense.. (BAIL GIVEN ON a REPEAT child molestor!!!!!!!)while he was out he killed three people.. .. one being a young child who was raped by this man.. so the system is not flawless and guilty do go free .. at the wrong times when they should not have. Catch 22. I do not think the system can be made perfect but I do believe a huge overhaul is needed and would take years to work on and plan.. including the indigent being able to have DNA testing.. not just the money shakers. I do support tougher sentences for felonies and I am sorry but I DO support LWOP (life without parole) for child molestors but I DO support internal and external investigations.. especially at election time when they want to close cases and get the off them books.. even at the expense of innocent lives. It is a huge heartbreak to hear of a man spending twenty and thirty years behind bars and later proven innocent through DNA. How do you give him back those years with loved ones and moving forward in life? Tragedy. +5 exc question.. this is my favorite area of law

Worse to send an innocent man to prison. Let the guilty man go free, maybe he will learn the error of his ways. That or he will be caught again, then the law will be certain of his guilt. NO man deserves to be locked in a cage.

To quote the Old Bailey hack: http://www.amazon.com/Rumpole-Bailey-Complete-Peter-Whitaker/dp/B000CRR360 "The presumption of innocence is the Golden Thread that runs through British justice". Yes, it is tragic when criminals get away with their crimes. However, it would be more tragic if the State had the power to imprison people without having to prove their guilt. This principle is one of the things that prevents the government from lapsing into tyranny. (I could go into a rant about how the Bush administration has abused presumption of innocence and habeus corpus, but I won't...:-P...)

Its worse to send an innocent man to prison, because that person doesnt deserve it. As for the guilty man who goes free, if theres a God, guilty man will have to answer to god, that is if he's not convicted of another wrong-doing before he dies...

I think all you can do is create the best system you can. There will always be cases of innocent men going to prison, for it not to happen you would have to be 100% sure they were guilty and then you would hardly send anybody to prison. But it is good that guilt has to be proved rather than innocence, so it is less likely for it to happen. I don't think the question can actually be answered, all we can do is strive to let neither happen.

If you are sending an innocent man to prison, chances are you have probably already let a guilty man go free. One is almost as equally bad as the other, though in a circumstance where the above doesn't apply, I would say it's worse to send an innocent man to prison because he is going to go through hell for absolutely no reason; whereas one who is guilty has a lot of varying facotrs of what he may go through-- generally once you're are a criminal, you keep the same ways until disciplined enough to know better, so eventually the guilty man will get what's in for him if he is just let go.

Tis worse to convict the innocent than to let the guilty go free. Many crimes are beyond our capacity to punish. Sending an innocent to prison would be a crime itself. Requiring the re-evaluation of the system that put him there and perhaps putting that system on trial as well.

It seems that it would be worse to send the innocent man but letting out a serial killer or rapist in my opinion would be worse.

It seems that it would be worse to send the innocent man but letting out a serial killer or rapist in my opinion would be worse.

This is a tough question. I'm going to go with it is worse to send an innocent man to prison.

My husband is in prison for molestation of his own daughter, who after six years has come forth and recanted her LIES. She is a grown woman now and finally told the truth....to NO avail. The district attorney is too concerned with himself than allowing an innocent man to be home with his family, SUPPORTING that family and being an upstanding member of society. The judge is too afraid of his political stance in the community to be fair. So how do you win??? This case sat on the books for SIX, I repeat SIX years before they 'removed' this 'HEINOUS' criminal from the streets. I have lost all faith in our criminal justice system, and any and all of our 'systems'. Our laws protect the criminals aka lawmakers and enforcers. I am educated and know the law and know he was railroaded for political gain and state and federal monies to fill county coffers. When will the insanity of these witchhunts end????????

It's worse to send the innocent to jail. If a guilty person goes free 9 times out of ten he will commit another crime and will eventually be caught yo...

I feel that it's much worse to send an innocent man to prison

I think they cancel each other out. Neither is good. But I feel the innocent man will be suffering at the injustice of being put somewhere he should not have been placed in the first place. The guilty man, can be tagged and monitored, and placed on a register if freed, so on that basis, I would say that an imprisoned innocent man is worse

niether

Innocent to prison.

Sending the innocent to prison. Most criminals repeat their offenses at some time. I'm sure the system will get another crack at the guilty person.