Two Questions of Ethics

[forsyth]

Is it more important that the guilty get punished, if it means innocents will be punished too, or that the innocent don't get punished, even if it means some of the guilty will go free?

Is it more important that we prevent people who don't need help from getting it, if it means that some of those in need won't get any, or that we ensure all of those in need get help, even if it allows more free riders?

I know my answers, which I'll put, along with some reasoning, in a comment. But I'm curious what others think. I suspect people's answers to these questions would correlate with a large number of other opinions.

Comments

[dirkdada.livejournal.com]

1) More important that the guilty go free. No matter the crime. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Better an innocent suffer at the hands of a maniac, than at the hands of her government.

2) Avoid waste and fraud as much as possible, but err on the side of helping people.

Compassion is the overriding motive for both of these answers.