This has been brought up numerous times and being a novice here, I decided to look it up. I have to think that at the times in history that this philosophy evolved, I don't imagine that much in the way of what would be viewed as rights of the accused existed. I don't imagine either that the nature and spectrum of the types of crime or punishment would be comparable either. I don't know how many here remember Celia Rygrok. I was a teenager and she was a beautiful little girl that lived down the street from me who was murdered by a repeat offender when she was 21. The only other case that I followed closely was Barbara Galway, who was a very close friend of mine at the time that her family was signing petitions to fight a deportation order following her killer's early release from another crime.
I can't know, but I feel that it is possible that so much evidence may be sacrificed during the process of legal arguments and admissible evidence, that there are times when justice for the souls who have been robbed of their life, and their families whose lives have been changed forever can't possibly be served.
I am not suggesting either that this is an obsolete philosophy, just that it exists historically and arose in a different era. Every defense lawyer must have this quote or something similar posted somewhere in their office:
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (170690)
QUOTATION: That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906).
He was echoing Voltaire, that generous Maxim, that tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.Zadig, chapter 6, p. 53 (1749, reprinted 1974).
Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), says, For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.
I can't know, but I feel that it is possible that so much evidence may be sacrificed during the process of legal arguments and admissible evidence, that there are times when justice for the souls who have been robbed of their life, and their families whose lives have been changed forever can't possibly be served.
I am not suggesting either that this is an obsolete philosophy, just that it exists historically and arose in a different era. Every defense lawyer must have this quote or something similar posted somewhere in their office:
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (170690)
QUOTATION: That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906).
He was echoing Voltaire, that generous Maxim, that tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.Zadig, chapter 6, p. 53 (1749, reprinted 1974).
Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), says, For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.