Why Is It Better To Condemn An Innocent

When the guilty are punished, it is easy to cackle at their ignorance, misfortune, and loss. It is frightening, how quickly our brains shape judgement. In a flash, human decency disappears, as if no sorrow can be felt by those who have done wrong. What if the man who was convicted was not a villain at all? Perhaps the man is merely a pitiful scapegoat who must face the wrath of capital punishment. What happens then? They stand up for the man, demonstrate in the streets, and have his name ringing in their ears for the rest of their lives thinking, “It could happen to me.” Since the man is innocent in the eyes of the public, it seems as though standing up for him is as powerful as standing up for oneself. There is a large responsibility in protecting the promise of justice. American citizens hear the words, “not guilty until proven innocent” and write it on their foreheads. The police force, supreme court, and any scuffle’s punishment is based on, “not guilty until proven innocent.” Voltaire’s idea that “it is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one,” perfectly captures this famous American principle. The majority of Americans believe in protecting the innocent, …show more content…
They argue that prisoners should be treated poorly because a scare tactic is needed to keep the people from committing crimes. However, criminals would not commit crimes if they feared prison so intensely. With planned crimes, like most murders, the criminal considers the outcomes of the action, knowing that prison is a possibility, and they take the risk anyways. Norway’s restorative system was built on the foundation of helping those who made the wrong decision, then counseling them back to better mental health. Prisoners are not coddled. They feel the sting of restricted freedoms and yearn for a better life without feeling hopeless or as if they have no control over their