Which is worse?

[NoMercy]

Not a news item, but a question. I guess this would be the best place for this type of debate.

Which, in your opinion, would be worse?

A man or woman, guilty of a heinous crime, walking free from court after being acquitted.

Or

An innocent man or woman spending countless years languising in a prison cell for a terrible crime they had played no part in?

[MarkRae]

Depends whether you are coming at this from the point of view of society or of the individual...

[sara3]

gosh lady, that's a toughie!

I guess it depends on the chances of the guilty ones re-offending. on that basis I'll go for option A.

but option B doesn't bear thinking about.

[Teleph0ne]

I would say they are both equally bad

[Teleph0ne]

Which ever side your talking from, justice hasn't been done and the criminal is walking free whilst the victim continues to suffer

[Seadragon]

It is said somewhere that it is better that a guilty man goes free than an innocent man be convicted. It is down to how justice is perceived. The guilty man if guilty should be convicted but to have an innocent man convicted by a jury shows a miscarriage of justice.

[NoMercy]

HI Guys.

Yes, a lot of families of victims of terrible crimes have not seen justice done, and could only hope that the perpetrators of the crimes will one day face a higher authority. But if someone spent, say, 25 years in a prison cell, persistently declaring their innocence and nobody listened, they would never get those missing years back. They could have missed out on watching their children/grandchildren grow up, had a glittering career brought to an abrupt, lost their partners/homes etc. And no amount of compensation would ever make up for years locked away from society. And even if your conviction was overturned and you were completely exonerated, mud sticks...

[NoMercy]

But... on the other hand...

If a child killer walked free from court and went on to reoffend... then several more innocent children could be killed by a monster that has been set free to prey...
Which is worth more... they life of a child or the life of the man/woman falsely accused of a heinous crime...

[Seadragon]

I think the idea is that a jury can't convict unless they are 'sure' or 'beyond resonable doubt' that the defendant is guilty. So in effect there is overwhelming evidence present for a conviction. That person is not deemed guilty unless convicted, that is the child killer is not a child killer in the eyes of the law unless convicted.

[NoMercy]

But what if he's let off on a technicality?

[NoMercy]

Sorry Seadragon... I read that whilst concentrating on something else.

Yes, in an ideal world, there would be no mistakes or miscarriages of justice. But this is a hypothetical question.

[sara3]

and you can be found guilty on a majority verdict, so not all jury members are convinced..

[Seadragon]

Yes, it is a tough question. As a human being none of the propositions are good. That's why we have juries brought together from a mix of society and majority verdicts. If you haven't seen the film - '12 angry men', I recommend it, it is excellent. Its set in a jury room, Henry Fonda I think? and about how these guys arrive at their decision. Old movie but really good.

[DrFilth]

do you trust the police, they knew he was innocent but they let him rot in jail

Stefan Kiszko
served 16 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted of sexual assault and murder
There was medical evidence that Kiszko had broken his ankle some months before the murder and, in view of that and his being overweight, he would have found it difficult to scale the slope to the murder spot. The sperm findings were suppressed by the police and never disclosed to the defence team or the jury: neither was the medical evidence of his broken ankle disclosed to the court.

the sperm sample proved he was innocent and the police kept it secret.

[NoMercy]

I vaguely remember the case, Dr.F. Did he die shortly after being vindicated?

There is also the case of Timothy Evans who was wrongly convicted and hanged for the murder of his infant daughter. He was subsequently pardoned after his co-tenant was found to be the real killer. Too late by then. My nan knew him just to say hello to.

[DrFilth]

yes then his mother not long after him

the police knew and what about the girls who helped him get locked up

he had male hypogonadism, which rendered him infertile, contradicting forensic evidence obtained at the time of the murder. His testes measured 4 to 5 mm in 1975, whereas the average male testicular size was 15 to 20 mm. During his research, Jackson found someone who said correctly that Kiszko was seen tending his father's grave with an aunt. They said they couldn't understand why they hadn't been called to give evidence at the trial. Someone else said he was in a shop around the time of the murder. Then, the three females involved in the original conviction admitted that the evidence they gave which led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh". They said that Kiszko hadn't exposed himself and hadn't been stalking them

[DrFilth]

http://www.innocent.o...efankiszko/index.html

[NoMercy]

Flipping heck... I didn't realise it was that long ago that he was released. I was only 15 in 1992... I seem to remember it being more recent than that. Unless I am remembering the real killer finally being brought to justice...

[DrFilth]

the one they got for it had a shop in ashton under lyne.

[DrFilth]

http://www.manchester...rm_for_molseed_killer