Guilt and just punishment.

Mr_Doomed wrote:Justice is in no way to protect the innocent. The innocence has already been violated and can no longer be protected.

Fair, but part of locking people up is to prevent them from committing other crimes, i.e. protecting the innocent.

Mr_Doomed wrote:Another contributing factor is that if you have proof that the innocent man is a criminal in his own respects, why not arrest him for the crimes he has committed? That way, justice can be served on two fronts. If you don't even have proof of any crimes that this man has committed, then he should be free to go as someone should be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm responding out of order here, but I believe it can be put more clearly this way.

Trying a man twice for the same crime is not allowed, so there exists possibilities that he could have had a mistrial or something else. Additionally, there are many instances where it is clear that a person is guilty, but because of technicalities, they cannot be charged. Take Al Capone for example. Everyone knew he was illegally running alcohol and committing other crimes, but they could not legally prove it. The ended up charging him with tax evasion. My point is that just because someone is a criminal clear as day does not mean they can be charged so easily.

Mr_Doomed wrote:Thus, justice is in fact a sort of compensation for the violation of the innocent. By convicting a man of a crime he didn't commit is a violation of that man's innocence. He may not be innocent in other respects, but in this case he is.
If you violate the innocence of that man, you then have to be brought to justice as well as vindication for the innocence that has been lost.

Yes, I agree that by legal terms, he is innocent to this charge and cannot be charged, but we're the ones making the decision and it seems to make more sense morally to charge the innocent man to prevent him from committing other crimes that he is likely to commit than to convict the guilty many who would never do it again.

I suppose it translates somewhat to a bigger picture. Another great play on this situation is the end of the Watchmen(spoilers) where Ozymandias sacrifices millions of people in order to secure global peace, while Rorschach insists on punishing every crime, even this one, even though exposing Ozymandias would break the peace. The underlying point I think I am trying to make is: "Is it okay for some injustice to go unpunished if it serves the greater good?" Do the ends justify the means, so to speak? Or is the greater good not worth getting if even one innocent has to suffer? I myself am conflicted, which is the reason why this case in LA Noire as well as the end to Watchmen seemed so powerful to me. I am honestly not sure which way is the right way.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RolePlayGateway/~3/_MebyNG7xtk/viewtopic.php

red velvet cake recipe josh krajcik porphyria cinnamon rolls krampus robert de niro winner of x factor