Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Not Admitting Guilt

Rate this topic


JeffS

Recommended Posts

In a thread on speeding tickets, someone implied that one shouldn't admit to the crime to the officer. Rather than posting there and hijacking the thread, I'll use this thread to ask a more general question: Should a criminal implicate himself, and if not, isn't this a form of evasion? Assume a real crime - a real initiation of force against another - not simply something deemed illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an act of evasion.... but I doubt any criminal would be concerned by it; his committing the crime already demonstrates his moral stature is too low to care about evasion..

If it is someone who, having committed the crime, realizes he ought to reform himself (or perhaps the crime was the result of an accident), that's a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a thread on speeding tickets, someone implied that one shouldn't admit to the crime to the officer. Rather than posting there and hijacking the thread, I'll use this thread to ask a more general question: Should a criminal implicate himself, and if not, isn't this a form of evasion? Assume a real crime - a real initiation of force against another - not simply something deemed illegal.

Your question is very general so giving a blanket statement is kind of difficult. Admitting guilt to a traffic cop who accuses you of speeding is different than admitting guilt when an officer accuses you of murder. Now you quantified your question by specifically stating a "real crime" but it seems that Objectivists disagree about traffic issues we'll keep that in the mix.

In general my take on it is this:

We do not have a just or proper legal system. All the implications of an offense are probably not clear at the time that a police officer detains you for whatever reason. That is the reason why the right to not incriminate oneself is important.

So I would say that generally to not admit guilt to an officer immediately may not be evasion depending on your motives for remaining silent.

However when you are before a judge at your actual trial to not admit it would be evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping silent is not an evasion, lying is. Unless there is a good reason for confessing, repentant criminals should exercise their right to remain silent, not help their prosecutors send them to jail. They should of course try and pay back the victim, but to help restrict your own freedom just for the sake of it is not rational.

I don't think Miss Rand is on record answering this specific question (after all, why would an Objectivist commit a crime, and how could Ethics have a good answer for someone who's been ignoring Ethics? - so she probably didn't think this was her problem), but she did support the 5th Amendment. My assumption is that she supported it because forcing someone to help their prosecution could mean forcing them to act against their self interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if the cop asks, "How fast were you going?" The proper response is to answer honestly?

I don't understand why my previous answer is unclear. Are you assuming the cop can force you to answer? He can't, you don't have to answer that question. If he didn't catch you in the act, you should thank your lucky stars and, more importantly, stop breaking the rules of the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why my previous answer is unclear. Are you assuming the cop can force you to answer? He can't, you don't have to answer that question. If he didn't catch you in the act, you should thank your lucky stars and, more importantly, stop breaking the rules of the road.

So, it's in your rational self-interests to act in such a way that perpetuates a society where criminals can avoid punishment simply by remaining silent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if the cop asks, "How fast were you going?" The proper response is to answer honestly?

One need not answer at all. One has no obligation to answer an asked question. If the officer has evidence that you were speeding then he has evidence of your speeding with or without your confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it's in your rational self-interests to act in such a way that perpetuates a society where criminals can avoid punishment simply by remaining silent?

Actually, it is in your rational self-interest to act in such a way as to force the government to be able to properly and objectively enforce the law. Sometimes this means ensuring that they have the evidence to charge someone with the crime without fishing for a confession. While it helps in some cases, remaining silent is not always the solution to avoiding punishment and it can actually result in a worse sentence than if the criminal had cooperated or plead guilty.

However, in general I agree that criminals are not concerned with Objectivist ethics, and for the most part, Objectivists are not likely to try to be criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue here is that when you are being questioned by an police officer, you are being asked very pointed questions which do not give you much room for full and proper explanation etc.

And what you end up being forced to give is probably only partial truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is in your rational self-interest to act in such a way as to force the government to be able to properly and objectively enforce the law.

I agree, but it's still evasion. If I was speeding, it doesn't matter what evidence the government has - the objective fact is that I was speeding. If asked, no, I don't need to respond, but that doesn't change the objective fact. I know I was speeding. If I avoid punishment simply by staying silent, should I rejoice that I live in a society so deficient that actual criminals go free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was speeding, it doesn't matter what evidence the government has - the objective fact is that I was speeding.

They have detection devices to determine that so the objective facts should come out in trial regardless of your statement. However, if they are stopping you without the objective evidence of your speed and you get charged anyway, there is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.

If asked, no, I don't need to respond, but that doesn't change the objective fact.

I don't see where anyone argued otherwise. What I'm arguing is how the justice system works and how your rational self interest in the long term may not be best served by admitting guilt versus ensuring that the justice system works properly. Addtionally, IS IT in your rational self-interest to pay a fine OR is it in your rational self-interest to learn from your mistake involving the least amount of punishment you can receive?

I know I was speeding.

Why were you speeding then? Is it in your rational self interest to knowingly break the law while knowing the risks? It doesn't sound rational from the start if you know you are speeding and you know you risk paying a fine because you will confess if stopped. Or, is some part of you gambling that you won't get caught in the first place?

should I rejoice that I live in a society so deficient that actual criminals go free?

No, you should rejoice that you live in a society where the state must prove your guilt so that the innocent are not punished unnecessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another way of looking at it; not admitting to the crime is not necessarily the same as avoiding the punishment, or even thinking that you shouldn't be held accountable. The legal term for not admitting the crime but not denying it either is "nolo contendere" or basically, no contest. One is still playing by the legal rules to which one can be held accountable by simply pleading "no contest".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...