Quote Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
you seem to be trapped by the illusion that the world should be fair.
Well there are certain aspects of this world that aren't fair and are out of our control, so it's no use saying whether or not they "should" be fair. However, it's certainly not an illusion to think that we (citizens as well as the government) should strive to make the world as fair as we possibly can. If everyone thought that it was an illusion to think the world should be as fair as we can possibly make it, monarchs and despots would still be running things, and life would be a hell of a lot less enjoyable for the vast majority of us. Therefore, I definitely think it's worthwhile to discuss what each of us thinks is the fairest way to run things (which is what I meant when I referenced the "right choice, morally-speaking).


Quote Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
the innocent suffer all the time and by failing to punish the guilty you allow them to further prey on the innocent. there must be a center ground where a significant number of the guilty are punished while only the occasional innocent is wrongfully punished. this is what the current us judicial system strives for.
Of course I realize that, ideally, you want to maximize the number of guilty people you correctly punish and minimize the number of innocent people you incorrectly punish. My poll question, however, was about choosing the lesser of two evils. More specifically, it was about which evil each of us (as well as each end of the political spectrum) perceives as being the lesser evil. Yes, by failing to punish the guilty you allow them to possibly, in the future, do more damage on the innocent, and you also give the public the impression that they are less likely to be punished if they are guilty. However, when you incorrectly punish someone who is innocent, you are directly doing damage to an innocent person which, in my estimation and that of most liberals, is clearly a worse transgression than letting a guilty person go free.

And as far as your assertion that my characterization of Republicans and Democrats (maybe I should have said Conservatives and Liberals instead) was faulty, I would have to respectfully disagree with your thinking. To see my point about the parties' differing ideals and priorities, it might help to think about other issues besides court cases. Just look at the Conservatives greater willingness than Liberals to engage in war, be it Iraq, Vietnam, etc. There are many reasons why this is the case, but the main point that separates the two sides is usually whether or not the objective of the war (which both sides usually agree on to some extent) is worth the collateral damage that is bound to be inflicted on innocent people during the course of the war. Conservatives will usually justify it by claiming the potential danger that could come our way if we didn't go to war (think "guilty" Saddam) makes collateral damage worthwhile. Liberals, on the other hand, will usually argue that the potential danger of not going to war does not justify killing "innocent" civilians who had nothing to do with endangering our country.

To clarify, I don't completely disagree with Conservatives on some issues, including war, but I do think that the Conservative way of thinking very much corresponds with (b) in my set of choices, and that way of thinking is simply not the best to have in mind when deciding what's best for this country, or any country.