In the year 1765 Sir William Blackstone, an eminent jurist of the time was quoted as saying "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"..... This came to be known as the BLACKSTONE RATIO or the BLACKSTONE FORMULATION.
This principle actually goes much further back in the history of man when in the chapter "Genesis" Abraham is supposed to have asked the Lord "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? ... What if even ten are found there?" ........The Lord is quoted as saying, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake.”........
Even in the Islamic tradition, Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, "Avoid legal punishments as far as possible, and if there are any doubts in the case then use them, for it is better for a judge to err towards leniency than towards punishment"
This principle was absorbed by the American legal system as also by the British legal system that is the foundation of the Indian legal system.
Other people who have cited this principle include Benjamin Franklin who has been quoted as saying that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" and thus expanding the acceptable ratio of Guilty to Innocent.
Though all through history the ratio has varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.
I suppose it comes from the basic principle “Presumption of Innocence” in all Criminal prosecutions or what is more widely known as “Innocent until Proven Guilty”
I had an interesting conversation with some friends who seem to feel (probably justifiably so) that in the larger interests of society the 10 or 100 innocents should be considered as collateral damage and one should not give a second thought to it. This of course arising from our discussion yesterday on there being checks and balances in the Indian law especially the 498 A Dowry act.
I would like to ask you all your views on this well-established principle….
1. Should we or shouldn’t we stick by it keeping in mind the society at large??
2. Can putting more checks and balances in any law that is being misused be construed as an act of the privileged to deny the under privileged?
