[E. Pluribus Unum]

Better to convict a hundred innocent people than acquit a guilty one.

</sarcasm>

[MrB]

I’ve had discussions with a lib-in-law about where we should err, though I think the bottom line is that it is a false dichotomy.

You don’t have to let 100 guilty people go in order to avoid convicting one innocent person. I do believe, however, that we should do all we can to make sure that those who are guilty of heinous crimes are not set free on some technicality. These types are likely to harm a lot of people in the future.

In essence, my argument to my libinlaw was that if he intended to let 100 guilty people go in order to avoid convicting one innocent person, he’s willing to allow the harm and/or death of all the innocent future victims of those 100 guilty he would let go for the freedom of the one falsely accused.

[Lazamataz]

Better to convict a hundred innocent people than acquit a guilty one.

I've always taken issue with the statement that "It is better to acquit one hundred guilty people, than it is to convict one innocent person."

Let me show you my proof:

So, as you can see, it is WORSE to acquit one hundred guilty people, than it is to convict one innocent person. It is, however, BETTER to acquit thirty-seven point nine five three, guilty people, than it is to convict one innocent person.