Should anyone be *obligated* to provide potential evidence to police?

[Greebo]

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/10/1719209/photographer-will-face-discipline.html

The above is an apology link by the Olympian for having given false information by an employee which they passed along.

A key section of the article is this:

In sharing those photos, Tony violated our long-standing policy of refusing to release to law enforcement agencies photographs and other material that have not been published in print or online.

We have that policy to ensure that we can be independent, unbiased observers of what goes on in our community. We are not an arm of any law-enforcement agency.

But applying such a policy is fraught with complications, and reasonable people can disagree about the appropriateness of Tony’s decisions. In the heat of violent confrontations, Tony held evidence of people breaking the law in his own hands, on the memory card in his digital camera. In a split-second decision as he watched people committing violent acts and in one case was assaulted himself, he chose to let police officers look at the photos on his camera’s view screen. That violated our policy.

This has led to some interesting discussions in other venues concerning the role of Journalists when it comes to criminal acts.

First off - I don't think Journalists should have any more "rights" than anyone else, so I couch this question in more general terms:

If a person is in possession of evidence of a crime (an immoral one, to be clear, as opposed to a "moral crime"), for instance, in the form of a photograph, and otherwise had nothing to do with the committing of that crime, does the Government have the moral right to compel the disclosure of that evidence in the interests of justice?

[Grames]

If a person is in possession of evidence of a crime (an immoral one, to be clear, as opposed to a "moral crime"), for instance, in the form of a photograph, and otherwise had nothing to do with the committing of that crime, does the Government have the moral right to compel the disclosure of that evidence in the interests of justice?

This question is pretty far afield from the story you linked to, where the evidence was given voluntarily.

But anyway, yes. The only limit is the prohibition against self-incrimination which is necessary to preserve objectivity in evidence gathering. Government use of force in the defense of rights is justified; it is the whole purpose of government.

[Greebo]

This question is pretty far afield from the story you linked to, where the evidence was given voluntarily.

Yes, the article was the trigger for a pretty broad topic. The discussion that got me thinking about this was whether journalists had a right to obstruct justice.

But anyway, yes. The only limit is the prohibition against self-incrimination which is necessary to preserve objectivity in evidence gathering. Government use of force in the defense of rights is justified; it is the whole purpose of government.

I agree with the latter, but what you suggest sounds like an initiation of force. Government's monopoly is on the use of retaliatory force. No person nor Government may morally initiate force.

If you have evidence as a witness that could convict a person, but otherwise were uninvolved, in what manner are you initiating force against the victim such that a retaliation against you is warranted?

[Grames]

If you have evidence as a witness that could convict a person, but otherwise were uninvolved, in what manner are you initiating force against the victim such that a retaliation against you is warranted?

Withholding evidence is sanctioning the crime in an objective material way, unlike someone merely sympathetic to the accused. A person withholding evidence is described in common law terms as an "accessory after the fact".

[Craig24]

Withholding evidence is sanctioning the crime in an objective material way, unlike someone merely sympathetic to the accused. A person withholding evidence is described in common law terms as an "accessory after the fact".

Out of curiosity, what is your reaction to the fact that it was his employer's policy not to hand over the photos?

[Grames]

Out of curiosity, what is your reaction to the fact that it was his employer's policy not to hand over the photos?

It is a bad policy that puts ethical and law abiding people at risk for losing their jobs or subjects them to other disciplinary actions from the paper. I would like journalists to at least try to be objective. Journalists cannot be objective by being opposed in principle to lawful fact-finding by the justice system.

[Greebo]

Withholding evidence is sanctioning the crime in an objective material way, unlike someone merely sympathetic to the accused. A person withholding evidence is described in common law terms as an "accessory after the fact".

Thanks, I knew I was missing a link somewhere.

[Doug Huffman]

Maybe the ethics can be found in a closer look at police interactions.

Having only the Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights that we defend, an objective individual must first evaluate his contact with the state's enforcement agents. Broadly speaking, they may not demand anything from a citizen not detained for cause.

Perhaps more fundamentally, this is an is/ought. We ought to embrace our fellows that are peace officers. Unfortunately they is corrupted by the leviathan.