Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Split: On Anarchy

Rate this topic


AwakeAndFree

Recommended Posts

Did I mention "innocents"?  In any discussion I've ever had with you, you've REPEATEDLY proven you're incapable of recognizing essential differences between ideas.

Delighted to hear that you do not endorse the use of force against innocents, i.e., those who did not initiate force against another person. If that is your position, then surely you would oppose the use of force against a person who chooses not to speak -- which is a choice that cannot be interpreted as being anything other than non-aggressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What if a key witness in a criminal case just doesn't feel like testifying?  Without his testimony, conviction is impossible.  A criminal walks free just because somebody didn't want to spend a couple hours in court.

What if those who provide the source of a legal system's finance just don’t feel like financing it anymore? Without money, a court system is impossible. Criminals would walk free just because the super rich didn't want to spend a couple of extra million on the justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delighted to hear that you do not endorse the use of force against innocents, i.e., those who did not initiate force against another person.  If that is your position, then surely you would oppose the use of force against a person who chooses not to speak -- which is a choice that cannot be interpreted as being anything other than non-aggressive.

Force does not require aggression. If I enter someone's property with their permission and then refuse to leave, I am using force against them. If someone asks me to store their property in my house and I refuse to give it back after agreeing, I am using force against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA:

Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the violation of rights?

Robinson:

Define “assist.”  And be careful here.  For example, does a car owner who leaves the ignition key in the vehicle “assist” the car thief?  Does a parent who does not do a background check on a baby-sitter “assist” in child molestation?  Then answer the question, “Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the invasion of a country?”

Somehow I knew I would not get a straight answer here.

I think it is very clear that a witness with knowledge of a crime is in a different situation than a person who leaves his keys in the car or a parent that does not do background checks.

You are playing word games to avoid acknowledging the fact that your position rests implicitly on the notion of a right to assist in the violation of rights.

By the way, I have already answered the question: “Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the invasion of a country?”

AisA:

The witness was present when the crime was committed and has evidence that can help the police identify the criminal;

Robinson:

One's possession of something that helps does not create an obligation to help. If that were the case, then the wealthy would have an obligation to donate funds to help law enforcement catch initiators of force.  To make your case you will have to prove that the police or prosecutor have a property right to the information in the witness’s head as a result of the witness involuntarily seeing a crime.

This is another straw man argument.

I have not said that anyone that can help, in any way, must help, in every way. I have said that those who are involved in the crime have an obligation not to assist the criminal. When they withhold evidence, they are assisting the criminal in violating someone else's rights.

Nothing in that argument can possibly be construed to mean that the wealthy have an obligation to give money to the police.

AisA:

that makes the witness a party to the crime. None of this applies to a juror: he was not present when the crime was committed, he does not have evidence that can help the police identify the criminal, and he is a party to the administration of justice, not the crime itself.

Robinson:

You have not established that being an involuntary “party” to an event creates any obligation to perform an action. Prove by arguing from fundamental axioms that involuntarily witnessing an event creates some debt on the part of the witness to another person or government agency.

The proof is that there is no such thing as the right to assist those who violate rights.

AisA:

I have already explained that it is the army and the police's responsibility to physically fight an invading army or criminals -- and that the private citizen's obligation in each case is only to provide any information or evidence that they may have.

Robinson:

Again, how does an unchosen, unvolunteered, uncontracted act by the citizen create an obligation to the state or another citizen?  If your claim is valid, then rights are purely circumstantial, not inherent in man’s nature as Rand argues.

Really? Then how do you account for the fact that Miss Rand also supported subpoena power? You have quoted her repeatedly, why do you not quote her on this issue? See the link that GC provided in his last post in this thread.

AisA:

You completely ignore the obvious distinctions -- which I have now explained several times -- between a witness to a crime and a random citizen.

Robinson:

You have not shown why random citizens should have full rights to speak (or not to speak) but random witnesses to crimes should not. Once you prove that unchosen, unvolunteered or uncontracted actions by a citizen can create obligations from him to the state, then I will start taking your argument seriously.

So is it your position that one does not have an obligation not to violate the rights of others because such a thing is "unchosen, unvolunteered or uncontracted"?

AisA:

Evaded, yes. Refuted, no.  When I explain repeatedly that physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police, and yet you continue to argue that compelling a witness to give testimony means the state can also compel him to physically intervene in crimes, then you are simply evading an argument, not answering it.

Robinson:

Your argument does not make sense.  If "physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police," then the police should be the first to come to the aid (“assist”?) a witness who has been threatened with force for sticking to his right not to speak. Since you acknowledged in Post #46 that subpoenas are the initiation of force, then those charged with “physically fighting criminals” should physically fight coercers of witnesses.

You continue to beg the question. There is no right to assist in the violation of rights, so there is no right to remain silent in this situation.

The issue is: does a witness have a right to assist a criminal by withholding evidence. You think he does, but will not say so for some reason.

AisA:

Man has an obligation not to violate the rights of others and, as a corollary, an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others.  You haven't even mentioned this position, let alone refuted it!

Robinson:

If we have “an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others,” then we should withhold our cooperation with any government official or agency that violates the right of a person not to speak, for that clearly is his right.

This is your idea of addressing an argument? Borrow a phrase from it and then repeat your own assumptions?

Once again, you evade the issue, which is: does a witness have the right to assist a criminal by withholding evidence? Your answer is yes.

AisA:

Does one have an obligation, chosen or not, not to violate the rights of others?

Robinson:

Check your premises.  There is no such thing as an unchosen obligation.

So, we may take it that your position is that one does not have an obligation not to violate the rights of others.

AisA:

A does not have the right to help the criminals by withholding what he knows.  Therefore, he cannot invoke a right to remain silent.

Robinson:

If A does not have the right to remain silent, then force used to compel his testimony would not be initiation of force. Thus, you contradict your statement in Post #46:  “Yes, it is an initiation of force.”  An argument that contains contradictory premises must have its contradictions reconciled or be declared invalid.

The initiation of force that I referred to in post 46 is that of the criminal forcing the witness to become a party to the crime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, that debate left above was probably the most rediculous argument I've ever read. Robinson has not skirted any issues. Also, after what may have been an hour of chatting, both of you managed to resolve nothing.

I think it is fairly obvious that a witness to a crime has no obligation to testify.

So, do you, too, believe that one has the right to assist those who violate rights?

Even if we could prove that in the philosophy of law, forcing testimony was justified. It could not be integrated into practice. How would one go about proving that a person was witness to a crime?
Without the power to collect evidence, how do you expect the police to prove anything? I asked Robinson that question, but he did not respond.

As far as proving who was a witness, that may be done by other witnesses or by security cameras or pictures. And if a witness says they cannot identify a criminal, that is generally the end of the story.

How would you be able to prove that what that person witnessed was important to the case? How would you be able to prove that the witness, even if at the scene of the crime, paid attention to the surroundings, or remembered what happened? I think we can all see the flaws in a subpoena system.
Eyewitness testimony is not the best type of evidence, though it is often useful. But bear in mind that the issue here is more than just testimony. The ability to compel all sorts of evidence, including critical forensic evidence, is crucial to the functioning of the criminal justice system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's instructive to note that those who oppose the subpoena system because it allegedly involves coercion against the innocent, are committed to a position that would wreck havoc with the criminal justice system. After all, if the government can't "coerce the innocent" in the investigation of a crime per the anti-subpoena argument, then they certainly can't collect physical evidence from the private property of an innocent third party, if said third party doesn't grant his consent, even if there is probable cause indicating that such evidence exists and is probative to the case at hand. Nor, by the same premise, could police pursue a suspected criminal onto the property of an innocent third party, if the third party doesn't consent to the police presence, otherwise we'd have "coercion of the innocent." I could go on, but I think these examples are sufficient for the honest to get the point. I believe they are damning because the erroneous premise at the heart of the anti-subpoena position, would mean that the government would be unable to effectively prosecute crime.

Anyone who's talked to detectives, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, and has taken Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure in law school (i.e., has read the actual relevant cases), as I have, actually understands that the anti-subpoena position is a deductive rationalism for want of any real concrete understanding of the issues and cases involved. I challenge the subpoena power detractors to offer their relevant background, other than as armchair philosophic speculators, that grants them the epistemological right to make their sweeping statements.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two points, both tying this discussion back to concretes:

1. I'm sure most of you are aware of the brutal murder of Jessica Lunsford. There are some reports that Couey's half-sister and two others failed to tell officers that Couey was staying at their mobile home. Assuming this is true, would it not fall under the category of "non-action"? Who in their right mind would suggest that it should be legal to not tell the government that a child is being raped?

2. There are many examples of the government initiating force, while the responsibility lay with someone else. Do those who disagree with this concept regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two points, both tying this discussion back to concretes:

1. I'm sure most of you are aware of the brutal murder of Jessica Lunsford. There are some reports that Couey's half-sister and two others failed to tell officers that Couey was staying at their mobile home. Assuming this is true, would it not fall under the category of "non-action"? Who in their right mind would suggest that it should be legal to not tell the government that a child is being raped?

2. There are many examples of the government initiating force, while the responsibility lay with someone else. Do those who disagree with this concept regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral?

I disagree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think that nuclear weapons are nearly impossible to use morally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think that nuclear weapons are nearly impossible to use morally.

I don't want to drift into a discussion about this, but I do hope you realize that this completely contradicts the Objectivist position.

BTW, do you have any response to #1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. There are many examples of the government initiating force, while the responsibility lay with someone else. Do those who disagree with this concept regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral?

Shouldn't the atomic bombings properly fall under the heading of retaliatory force, since it was in response (ultimately) to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the atomic bombings properly fall under the heading of retaliatory force, since it was in response (ultimately) to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

The point is that people were intentionally killed who never themselves initiated force. Their right to life was violated, but not by the Americans; they were violated by their own government the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I'm sure most of you are aware of the brutal murder of Jessica Lunsford. There are some reports that Couey's half-sister and two others failed to tell officers that Couey was staying at their mobile home. Assuming this is true, would it not fall under the category of "non-action"? Who in their right mind would suggest that it should be legal to not tell the government that a child is being raped?

Did they lie about this when directly asked? Or did they omit this information when they were being questioned? What are the specifics?

WARNING: graphic depiction of heinous crime below

Did you ever hear of the Jeremy Strohmeyer case? This was covered in my Criminal Law class as a classic example illustrating that there is no general duty to assist. My recollection of the case is that Strohmeyer (a college student at UC Berkeley) lured a young child (I think she was about four years old) into a bathroom at a Las Vegas casino (but it may have been Buffalo Bills at the border). He brought her into a stall and proceeded to rape her. While this was happening, his friend entered the bathroom and peered over the stall observing Strohmeyer raping (and I think starting to strangle) the little girl. The friend left the bathroom (I can't recall if he told Strohmeyer to stop or not), and continued gambling as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening. Strohmeyer murdered the girl. There was public outrage that the friend didn't tell anyone (police, security guards, etc.) what Strohmeyer was doing to the little girl. In his defense, Strohmeyer's friend basically said that it was none of his business what Strohmeyer was doing and that he didn't have any obligation to help the little girl. There was a call for Strohmeyer's friend to be prosecuted for not assisting the girl (if only to tell someone, anyone, what was happening). But, Strohmeyer's friend was not prosecuted according to the principle that there is no general duty to assist (except in in the sort of situations that I listed in an earlier post).

Strohmeyer's friend returned to school at UC Berkeley.

(I think I got most of the details right, but it's been several years since I discussed the case in class).

There are other prominent similar cases that I could relate, if you think it is necessary (they highlight certain features of the fact that there is no general duty to assist). However, this one case may be more than sufficient.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to drift into a discussion about this, but I do hope you realize that this completely contradicts the Objectivist position.

BTW, do you have any response to #1?

I realize it contradicts the current Objectivist position, but I do not think it contradicts the Objectivist doctrines.

As for number 1, I do not think keeping information from the police is morally wrong. But harboring a criminal is wrong, because it requires the actively helping the criminal. I don't think keeping information from the police is a nice thing to do, but it definitely should not be a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that people were intentionally killed who never themselves initiated force. Their right to life was violated, but not by the Americans; they were violated by their own government the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

I'm going to use a technique Rand employed often, called reductio ad absurdum.

Let's suppose your line of thinking is correct, that you are punishable for the crimes of those who control you, regardless of whether you submit willingly or not to the controller.

This would mean that children are punishable for what their parents do, because their parents often act on their behalf. It would mean that hostages are responsible for what their captors do. This is obviously ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that people were intentionally killed who never themselves initiated force. Their right to life was violated, but not by the Americans; they were violated by their own government the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Why do you think that is the proper conception of the non-initiation of force principle during war?

But I'm a little confused because if I understand your second sentence, then wouldn't it be incorrect to say that the atomic bombings were initiated force; that is to say, they were retaliatory.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that people were intentionally killed who never themselves initiated force. Their right to life was violated, but not by the Americans; they were violated by their own government the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Why do you think that is the proper conception of the non-initiation of force principle during war?

However, if I understand your second sentence, then it wouldn't be incorrect to say that the atomic bombings were initiated force; that is to say, they were retaliatory.

Oakes can answer for himself, but the atomic bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki were retalitory force. Also if we were to nuke say Iran, right now, that would also be retalitory force because we have been both implicitly and explicitly warned by them that they are our enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA:

Somehow I knew I would not get a straight answer here.

Robinson:

That is because you asked a question without defining your terms. If you ask ambiguous questions, don’t expect to get answers, straight or otherwise.

AisA:

I think it is very clear that a witness with knowledge of a crime is in a different situation than a person who leaves his keys in the car or a parent that does not do background checks.

Robinson:

If the difference is clear, then you should have no trouble articulating it. Go ahead and do so. My position is that since a person becomes a witness by no action of his own, he cannot be made to perform any service as a result of his being a witness.

AisA:

You are playing word games to avoid acknowledging the fact that your position rests implicitly on the notion of a right to assist in the violation of rights.

Robinson:

Again, you refuse to define “assist.” Once we know what you mean by the word, then we will be able to determine, perhaps, whether a woman who leaves her apartment unlocked should be charged with assisting a rapist.

AisA:

By the way, I have already answered the question: “Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the invasion of a country?”

This is another straw man argument.

Robinson:

No straw man. If you oppose the involuntary servitude of the draft, then your defense of the involuntary servitude of the subpoena is inconsistent with your opposition to the draft.

AisA:

I have not said that anyone that can help, in any way, must help, in every way. I have said that those who are involved in the crime have an obligation not to assist the criminal.

Robinson:

There are no unchosen obligations to perform services for others.

AisA:

When they withhold evidence, they are assisting the criminal in violating someone else's rights.

Robinson:

But surely the attorney for the accused is "assisting" the defendant. If a non-compliant witness can be jailed for “assisting” the criminal, why not jail the criminal’s attorney? Now, if you insist that the situations are different, then please offer a definition of "assist" that would include one action but exclude the other.

AisA:

Nothing in that argument can possibly be construed to mean that the wealthy have an obligation to give money to the police.

Robinson:

Is it your position that it is better for a criminal to get away with a crime than force someone to perform a service against his will?

AisA:

The proof is that there is no such thing as the right to assist those who violate rights.

Robinson:

Then your proof is invalid since it rests on an undefined term.

AisA:

Really? Then how do you account for the fact that Miss Rand also supported subpoena power? You have quoted her repeatedly, why do you not quote her on this issue? See the link that GC provided in his last post in this thread.

Robinson:

I quote her for support only when she is right. If Rand’s support of the subpoena is correct, then show how it squares with “The Objectivist Ethics,” which holds that “Men have the right to use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

AisA:

So is it your position that one does not have an obligation not to violate the rights of others because such a thing is "unchosen, unvolunteered or uncontracted"?

Robinson:

Straw man fallacy. I said no such thing. What I wrote was, “Once you prove that unchosen, unvolunteered or uncontracted actions by a citizen can create obligations from him to the state, then I will start taking your argument seriously.” A witness’s refusal to testify is not a violation of anyone’s rights, since no one has a proprietary right to the content of another person’s mind.

AisA:

You continue to beg the question. There is no right to assist in the violation of rights, so there is no right to remain silent in this situation.

Robinson:

No, but you do continue to evade my request for a definition. Without knowing exactly what “assisting” consists of, we cannot have objective law since the number of activities that might be considered “assisting” would be limitless.

AisA:

The issue is: does a witness have a right to assist a criminal by withholding evidence. You think he does, but will not say so for some reason.

Robinson:

If I knew exactly what you meant by “assist,” I would be able to state unambiguously whether the act of “assisting” does constitute the violation of rights and should be punishable. However, you continue to withhold from our discussion any precise definition of the term.

AisA:

This is your idea of addressing an argument? Borrow a phrase from it and then repeat your own assumptions?

Robinson:

You offered a principle of law, and I merely attempted to see how it worked in the real world. You said, “Man has an obligation not to violate the rights of others and, as a corollary, an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others.” If your principle is valid, then it should certainly apply to protecting a person who has not initiated force from having force used against him. In other words, it would apply to protecting the right of a witness not to speak.

AisA:

Once again, you evade the issue, which is: does a witness have the right to assist a criminal by withholding evidence? Your answer is yes.

Robinson:

In fact, not. To repeat: If I knew exactly what you meant by “assist,” I would be able to state unambiguously whether the act of “assisting” does constitute the violation of rights and should be punishable. However, you have chosen to withhold from our discussion any definition of the term.

AisA:

So, we may take it that your position is that one does not have an obligation not to violate the rights of others.

Robinson:

Rand: “No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as ‘the right to enslave.’” (“Man’s Rights”) Here, by “obligation” Rand clearly means service or labor. Simply respecting the rights of others is not the performance of a service or labor. In fact, by doing nothing in regard to another person, one can avoid violating his rights. And that is precisely what a witness who chooses no to speak is doing: not violating anyone’s rights by doing nothing.

AisA:

The initiation of force that I referred to in post 46 is that of the criminal forcing the witness to become a party to the crime.

Robinson:

Not true.

Nimble wrote, “If you are not guilty, then wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force?”

Your response: Yes, it is an initiation of force, but it is the criminal, not the government that is trying to catch the criminal, who bears responsibility for this.”

So clearly you were not speaking of the criminal forcing the witness to look at his crime (an absurdity), but rather the force used to get someone into court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge the subpoena power detractors to offer their relevant background, other than as armchair philosophic speculators, that grants them the epistemological right to make their sweeping statements.

This is basically an ad hominem argument. Instead of dealing with the arguments of those who oppose subpoenas on ethical principles, you are calling their positions into question because of their educational backgrounds. Your criterion would be a valid one only if it could be shown that by virtue of being a lawyer or law enforcement official, one’s opinions about law are objectively correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Force does not require aggression.  If I enter someone's property with their permission and then refuse to leave, I am using force against them.  If someone asks me to store their property in my house and I refuse to give it back after agreeing, I am using force against them.

I was using the word "aggression" in the sense of invasive. In both examples you gave, the person who does not relinquish property belonging to another is acting in an invasive manner. His refusal to give up what belongs to another may indeed be considered a form of aggression; his continued occupation/holding of it is equivalent to a seizure of property, in principle no different than that of a thief.

In any case, let us not lose track of the argument on this thread: whether subpoenas are justifiable. If, as you implied in an earlier post, you do not endorse the use of force against innocents, then surely you would oppose the use of force against a person who chooses not to speak -- which is a choice that cannot be interpreted as being anything other than non-coercive.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically an ad hominem argument.  Instead of dealing with the arguments of those who oppose subpoenas on ethical principles, you are calling their positions into question because of their educational backgrounds.  Your criterion would be a valid one only if it could be shown that by virtue of being a lawyer or law enforcement official, one’s opinions about law are objectively correct.

No, I'm saying that you are armchair philosophizing. And given your non-response (and the numerous blatant errors you've made in your posts on this subject so far), I think I'm right. In fact, you didn't address the concretes that I raised in the quoted post. You've avoided the issue by taking the easy way out.

A prerequisite to discussing a specialized field of knowledge, especially the law, is that you have the background to do so: i.e., a firm grasp of the necessary concepts and their interrelations, and a thorough exposure to the concretes of the field (in other words been to law school). It's my guess that you don't have either of these, but still you speculate. Fortunately for those who disagree with you but likewise do not have the background to definitively make their claims, well, at least they are actually supporting the correct position.

It's really not worth my time to argue with you on the specifics of this anymore than I would recommend a biologist argue with a creationist. What you're doing is precisely what Dr. Peikoff has on a number of occasions explicitly avoided, which is to make pronouncements on the philosophy of law. He recognizes that he doesn't have the educational background required to do so without being rationalistic. If you haven't been to law school, at least for the first year, you really can't know what you're talking about. Ask any (rational) lawyer.

As an aside, I've noticed over the years that Objectivists are want to pontificate on subjects they aren't really mentally equipped to handle. I think that this is partially a result of youth and exuberance. However, it might also be due to the fact that Objectivists tend to be of higher than average intelligence and are guided by some powerful philosophic tools. As useful as these things may be, high intelligence and a rational philosophy is no substitute for actual knowlege in a field. Certain members of this board would benefit from heeding the lesson implicit herein. As for myself, you don't see me going around issuing ridiculous dogma on scientific issues just because I can come up with some scientific sounding phrases. I know better. Hence, I keep my mouth shut.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they lie about this when directly asked? Or did they omit this information when they were being questioned? What are the specifics?

Why does this matter? It should be illegal either way. Anyway, I believe it was the latter: They didn't inform the police that he was staying there.

I have never heard of the case you mentioned, but if that is true, I am apalled by the ruling.

As for number 1, I do not think keeping information from the police is morally wrong. But harboring a criminal is wrong, because it requires the actively helping the criminal. I don't think keeping information from the police is a nice thing to do, but it definitely should not be a crime.

Harboring a criminal? Those three people - as far as I understand - lived with Couey. There wasn't any harboring going on, and they didn't have to do anything active at all. But at least you admitted the important part: You think that if someone passively witnesses a child being raped, they should have no legal obligation to report it to the police.

Let's suppose your line of thinking is correct, that you are punishable for the crimes of those who control you, regardless of whether you submit willingly or not to the controller.

When did I ever say "you are punishable for the crimes of those who control you"? The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not punishments for crimes; they were attempts to end the war sooner and save American lives.

But I'm a little confused because if I understand your second sentence, then wouldn't it be incorrect to say that the atomic bombings were initiated force; that is to say, they were retaliatory.

When we killed Japanese civilians, we were retaliating against the Japanese government, but at the same time the civilians had their right to life violated by the government who provoked such bombings (their government). So I thought of it as a parallel to when the police subpeona someone; the government is only retaliating against the criminal, but at the same time the individual receiving the subpeona had their right to liberty violated -- by the criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this matter? It should be illegal either way. Anyway, I believe it was the latter: They didn't inform the police that he was staying there.

I have never heard of the case you mentioned, but if that is true, I am apalled by the ruling.

You mean why does it matter whether they lied in response to a direct question, or whether they simply didn't cough up all information in their possession whether asked about or not (some of which might turn out to be relevant)? You don't find a distinction between the two scenarios?

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harboring a criminal? Those three people - as far as I understand - lived with Couey. There wasn't any harboring going on, and they didn't have to do anything active at all. But at least you admitted the important part: You think that if someone passively witnesses a child being raped, they should have no legal obligation to report it to the police.

Well, then you may be shocked to learn that--save the exceptions I've previously mentioned--such non-enforced obligation is generally speaking the law of the land. Given your sympathies, you might also be upset to know that the "policy reason" (law school lingo for the ethical/political justification) cited for this is, if I'm remembering correctly (I'd have to go to my notes to be sure), egoistic and individualistic in nature.

Whether obligatory assistance should be the law or not (and I think it should not be, given the roughly correct reasons cited in the common law, some of which I've just alluded to), contra "Nimble" it may be absolutely morally reprehensible to not assist in certain circumstances.

A little more on the policy reason behind the "no general duty to assist." The example that the Crim prof began with was the drowning victim/life preserver hypothetical. If you saw a man drowning, and all you had to do was throw him a life preserver, do you have a legal obligation to do so, i.e., could you be prosecuted for failing to assist him? The answer is "no" (again barring the specifically defined exceptions). The reason for that is essentially the egoistic/individualistic nature of the common law, and given this, altruism is not enforced by law. Thus, just as there is no legal duty to rescue a drowning man, mutatis mutandis there is no duty to assist the victim of a crime, even if such assistance is simply to report the crime.

When we killed Japanese civilians, we were retaliating against the Japanese government, but at the same time the civilians had their right to life violated by the government who provoked such bombings (their government). So I thought of it as a parallel to when the police subpeona someone; the government is only retaliating against the criminal, but at the same time the individual receiving the subpeona had their right to liberty violated -- by the criminal.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at now. I'd only add that the Japanese people in World War II were generally much more complicit than their typical subpeonaed counterparts.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean why does it matter whether they lied in response to a direct question, or whether they simply didn't cough up all information in their possession whether asked about or not (some of which might turn out to be relevant)? You don't find a distinction between the two scenarios?

I see the distinction, but I think both should be illegal. If one knows a crime is in progress, one should be legally obligated to report it whether or not one is directly questioned.

Well, then you may be shocked to learn that--save the exceptions I've previously mentioned--such non-enforced obligation is generally speaking the law of the land. Given your sympathies, you might also be upset to know that the "policy reason" (law school lingo for the ethical/political justification) cited for this is, if I'm remembering correctly (I'd have to go to my notes to be sure), egoistic and individualistic in nature.

If the law currently states that it is legal to not report a crime that you witness, I can't imagine an egoistic reason being brewed up to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law currently states that it is legal to not report a crime that you witness, I can't imagine an egoistic reason being brewed up to justify it.

Then what would you say to the "drowning man" hypothetical that I added above?

The working assumption here is that you know how to swim and that even if you had to jump in to save him, there would be only a minimal risk to your own life. Also, there is no one else around who could save the drowning man. You're just walking by and happen to see the man drowning.

Let's break it down to a few questions:

Moral

1. If you had to jump in the water to save him, do you have a moral obligation to do so?

2. If you simply had to throw a life preserver to him, do you have a moral obligation to do so?

3. If you simply had to shout for help, do you have a moral obligation to do so?

If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, what is the source of the moral obligation? Is it egoism or altruism, or something else? If you want to say that there is a moral obligation to assist because the assistance is essentially non-sacrificial, then is the principle that we have a duty to serve others if such service is deemed minimally (or even "non") sacrificial? If so, what is the operating principle here?

Legal

1. If you have a moral obligation per any of the above questions, does this (and if so, how?) translate into a legal obligation? According to what principle. After all, there are all sorts of immoralities that are not legally punished (such as certain instances of lying). Why should this immorality (again assuming it is) be punished? Remember, you haven't positiviely deprived this person of something that you had no right to. You haven't initiated force against him. Do you owe him anything? If so, what?

2. If you don't have a moral obligation per the above three "moral" questions, then on what grounds can we arrive at enforced assistance? What is the principle?

Do you want to live in a society where other peoples needs, whether to money, food, a job, to not drown, to not be the victim of a criminal, and so on, are positive legal obligations on your life?

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...