I know my girlfriend will disagree with this.

I'm not a very good man. I don't think I'm a particularly bad man, I'm mostly neutral, with hopefully some good tendencies. But I don't feel I do enough to actually call myself good. I try to be honorable, truthful and most of the rest of the stuff like the Boy Scout Oath. And I think I manage to usually not be a jerk and not be evil, but that's not enough to make somebody good.

Good has to be active, and actually work to make things better, not just not make things worse. Or even, in the case of all the stuff tied up in living in modern industrial America, make things worse slower. Not being evil's not enough to qualify as good, but it's the first step. Good has to actually make a positive difference

Much of it's my own fault, my besetting vice has to be sloth, I keep saying one of these days I'll get around to not procrastinating any more, but it's not really been happening. I need to get out and get more involved and active, which I've been working on. The root word of activist is active, after all.

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.

Which is more important to justice, punishing the guilty or making sure whatever it was doesn't happen again?