Interesting philosophical question (NOT religion)

[ProgRocker]

I've been pondering this for a couple of days... I'm not sure why, probably because of all the criminal cases they've been reporting in the news.

Suppose you're convicted of a crime that you didn't commit, like an armed robbery. Let's say you spend 10 years in jail (no idea how much something like that would actually warrant). Then some kind of new evidence comes up, and you're found innocent. You already lost 10 years of your life.

Now after that let's say you actually go out and commit armed robbery. You are caught and found guilty, and sentenced to 10 years in jail. Should the govt actually put you in jail? On one hand, you did spend 10 years in jail already for something you didnt do, so you sort of have a "jail credit", and it seems fair to count that as your punishment. On the other hand, if you know that you wouldnt have to spend the time in jail, you may be more inclined to commit the crime in the first place, since you have a "get out of jail free" card.

I dont know which is the right thing. I honestly dont have a defensible opinion on this issue. It seems to be one of those things where the practical thing to do is the opposite of the just thing to do. Maybe someone here can figure this out.

[SethFWF]

I don't think anyone can figure that one out...there'll be as many opinions as people on this BB I would think. You're probably right about the practical vs. the just. I guess it would just seem absurd to me that someone would commit a crime that they just spent that time in jail for unjustly. But if it were to happen, my guess is they would spend the time again. Don't know what's right though?

Seth

[Fox]

I think the government should simply pay you a comfortable (ie a bit above the median) salary for some period.

So ie pay you $50k a year for 20 years to said person.

If you commit a crime back to jail you go though.