Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Not Reporting A Crime

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

More likely we would have a society with near-total video surveilance, so that almost all crimes would be captured on video. The video could then be used in court without the need for intrusive evidence-gathering.
Presumably these surveillance cameras are positioned with the permission of the owner (not required by law), and their presence would have to be known (so that a customer could decide whether to enter a shop or use the bathroom at a gas station based on the presence or absence of a surveillance camera). This carries with it an implicit abandonment of an individual's claim for protection against rights, that if you enter some un-surveilled property and are robbed, then you must carry a camera with you -- and you must manage to keep that camera -- to provide the proof of the crime. Otherwise, you are abandoning your claim to be protected by the government.

Under your scheme for all-volunteer justice, what is the standard used by the courts to determine that the person accused is the photographed criminal? Remember that there is no right to arrest a person until after their conviction, so you can't just point to the defendant and show a picture, and let the jury see the obvious (or non-obvious) similarity. You can't require a mandatory system of registering people, so the simplest way to avoid conviction is to not show up to the trial and simply deny that you are the guy in the picture. How do you address that problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I have done is to show that the right of self-defense is universal. It is not limited to bizarre cases of gunmen with babies on their chest. It extends to all areas of life -- including the courtroom.

No, what you have done is dropped the context of judging the morality of an emergency situation, and attempted to apply it to a non-emergency situation after the emergency is over. No matter how many times you assert it, you are still dropping context.

I was going to quote a rather long section of The Virtue of Selfishness - The Ethics of Emergencies, but I decided not to. If you have an interest in learning the differences between what should guide our actions in emergencies, and what should guide our actions after the emergency is abated, I'll leave it to you to read it.

But it is not accurate for you to assume that I disagree with Ayn Rand or Objectivism. My disagreement remains with how you are interpreting the morality and the rights involved in this discussion.

With that said, I'll let you have whatever last word you would like and I will let my arguments against you stand and "let the peanut gallery decide". At this point I am doubtful we can reach agreement on this particular issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what you have done is dropped the context of judging the morality of an emergency situation, and attempted to apply it to a non-emergency situation after the emergency is over. No matter how many times you assert it, you are still dropping context.

Haven't dropped context at all. Same factors at play in both situations.

I was going to quote a rather long section of The Virtue of Selfishness - The Ethics of Emergencies, but I decided not to. If you have an interest in learning the differences between what should guide our actions in emergencies, and what should guide our actions after the emergency is abated, I'll leave it to you to read it.
Read it and applied it. Nothing in it contradicts what I've said.

But it is not accurate for you to assume that I disagree with Ayn Rand or Objectivism. My disagreement remains with how you are interpreting the morality and the rights involved in this discussion.

Feel free to disagree. My interpretation is the correct one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I'm thinking more about how I'm going to respond to your post #86, so please don't think I have blown it off or have forgotten. Part of it involves reviewing some old thread(s) on similar subjects.

The short version is this; whether or not a sound philosophical basis can be determined on the propriety of violating the suspect's rights prior to a conviction, from a practical standpoint a system of criminal justice could not function otherwise. An "honor" system of criminal justice would be effectively no system of justice. The reason (aside from the practical standpoint) why I would have no problem with the government denying the rights of the accused is because, rationally speaking, he has a very vested interest in the outcome of his trial anyway. The degree to which any given witness may have a vested interest in the case could vary greatly. The accused always (or should anyway) have recourse against false testimony if it can be demonstrated that he has been falsely accused.

I did want to point out a bit of irony with the current US system. While the law compels the suspect to be present during his trial, it expressly protects him from having to testify (against himself obviously). However, the power of subpoena expressly commands an (potentially) innocent party not only to be present, but to give testimony upon threat of force.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of something I read in OPAR, about justice.

"The innocent man asks for justice, not mercy. He wants what is coming to him."

You might be able to show that it is, in fact, to someone's rational self-interest to testify in such a situation. I agree, if the alternative was choosing between having my rights violated to testify, or the entire judicial system collapsing I would probably choose the first. I am not sure yet if that is the only choice there is, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short version is this; whether or not a sound philosophical basis can be determined on the propriety of violating the suspect's rights prior to a conviction, from a practical standpoint a system of criminal justice could not function otherwise.
As I said from the point at which the issue came up, I don't have a firm conviction regarding what the right answer is, based on a systematic consideration of the question -- that's what I'm discovering now. What I am coming to appreciate is that this practical standpoint issue is not easily dismissed. So of course I welcome any and all reasons to back off from that position, so that I can see whether the position is really tenable. I also find current law regarding subpoenas, testimony and so on both ironic and confusing: it is the epitome of law without a sound philosophical foundation. How in the world is a lay-person supposed to know what they may and may not legally do??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David: I certainly agree there are serious practical problems with the scenario I am proposing, but I do not see an alternative.

To expand on your comments about subordinating society to moral law, I see the individual's responsiblity as follows:

-to not violate the rights of others

-to agree to let the government act as his agent of justice in case his rights are violated (except in immediate self-defense situations before the police arrive)

-to agree to let the government resolve civil disputes, and abide by the decisions given

That's it, though; there is no positive obligation to help prosecute criminals who commit crimes against others, or to give up some rights while being investigated for a crime. It would be wider version of the right not to incriminate yourself that Vern mentioned.

In fact, it is not the government that is the violator of a witness's rights but rather the criminal whose initial aggressive act made the government's response necessary. This is the very point Dr. Ghate made in regard to the holdup man with the baby strapped to his chest.

As to taxation and the draft, I explained before that Ayn Rand made it clear that those policies are never legitimate in a free society. Supporting compulsory financing of government or a slave army would automatically disqualify one as an Objectivist. On the other hand, Ayn Rand produced no strictures against subpoenas and other legal requirements to assist law enforcement authorities.

If your position is correct, then Objectivism is inconsistent on this issue. You can't have it both ways. If violating witnesses' rights is acceptable, then so is taxation and conscription. But I think that you are mistaken and that Vern is correct that you are improperly equating emergency situations and the normal functioning of a society.

On the issue of it being rational to testify, in most situations I would agree. If, however, a witness' life were threatened for testifying (which is what happened in Baltimore) I think it would be quite rational to decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your position is correct, then Objectivism is inconsistent on this issue. You can't have it both ways. If violating witnesses' rights is acceptable, then so is taxation and conscription. But I think that you are mistaken and that Vern is correct that you are improperly equating emergency situations and the normal functioning of a society.

Serial killers roaming the streets are not part of the normal functioning of a society. If it is moral to fire at a threatening gunman and thereby bring injury or death to those standing behind him (as Ayn Rand said it was), then it is just as moral to make a witness take off work one day to give testimony against a murderer.

Edited by Daedalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case it is just as moral to force people to pay taxes or serve in the military. Either Ayn Rand was inconsistent or your reasoning is flawed.

I don't see how you can compare giving up an hour of one's time to give testimony with two years of military slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a ) It's a matter of principle, not of degree.

b ) Being a witness could get you killed.

c ) You can easily compare an hour of your time to being taxed an hour's wages.

It is possible to defend a nation without conscription and taxation. It may not be possible to defend an individual's life if we have to worry about hurting someone that a predator is using as a shield. And that word "shield" applies to hostages, innocent bystanders and reluctant witnesses. "Being a witness could get you killed"? Not testifying against a murderer could get a lot of people killed.

Edited by Daedalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did want to point out a bit of irony with the current US system. While the law compels the suspect to be present during his trial, it expressly protects him from having to testify (against himself obviously). However, the power of subpoena expressly commands an (potentially) innocent party not only to be present, but to give testimony upon threat of force.
But is there really an inconsistency here? Is it not true that both parties, the accused and the witness, may invoke their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we focus on whether or not it is right for the government to do this, rather than whether or not it is the only thing that works? The moral is the practical, but you can't just reverse that and start with a practical assumption.

Daedalus, you say that "it may not be possible", but is that sufficient reason to violate someone's rights? I think you have to be able to state that with far greater certainty to start using extreme measures such as you are arguing in favor of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daedalus, you say that "it may not be possible", but is that sufficient reason to violate someone's rights?
But is there such a thing as the right to obstruct the defense of rights?

Since we delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government, the victim of a crime has a right to have the government use retaliatory force on their behalf. Those who withhold evidence required to properly use retaliatory force are violating that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are making some pretty wild leaps of logic here. Ayn Rand was quite clear on the nature of rights:

"The concept of a "right" pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference from other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his right impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."

(Man's Rights; italics in original)

The last sentence is the critical point. Your only obligation is to refrain from violating the rights of others. You do not have a positive obligation to protect the rights of others or to help the government do so. The government's role as a rights protector does not give it carte blanche to violate some rights in order to protect others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your only obligation is to refrain from violating the rights of others.
But don't the rights of others include the right to have the government use retaliatory force on our behalf when we are the victim of a crime? And aren't those that obstruct the government's effort to use retaliatory force violating that right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obstructing the government's effort and not helping them are very different things, though. One is an action, the other is not. Only an action can violate someone's rights.
Do you agree that we have a right to have the government use retaliatory force on our behalf when we are the victim of a crime?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maarten is correct.

Perhaps another quote will help:

"Even in regard to its legitimate functions, a government may not justifiably initiate force. It must operate jails and military installations, but it may not demand that men serve in the police or the army against their own judgement, nor may it finance its activities by seizing property without the consent of the owners." (OPAR p. 368)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not true that both parties, the accused and the witness, may invoke their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination?
That is insufficient, because you have no right to refuse to testify unless doing so would force you to say something that would land you in trouble. If your testimony would lead to a loss of value to you, that won't legally sanction your silence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

The irony of which I speak is that the purpose of the a trial (or it should be) is to pursue justice; to uncover the truth; to protect individual rights. In the eye of the law, the accused is to be viewed as innocent. With that in mind, we have three different types of "innocent" people involved here.

1. Suspect;

2. Victim;

3. Witness.

If you are going to compel any one of them to testify in pursuit of the truth, in pursuit of justice, in pursuit of the protection of individual rights the concept, not just the victim's or just the suspect's), then they ALL should be compelled to testify.

As one might guess, that is not my position. My position is that NONE of them should be legally compelled to testify except for the victim IF he has brought a complaint against the suspect or a witness who has agreed to testify or basically contracted to assist.

I agree that Objstructing Justice should be an action, not simply a lack of cooperation. You might consider the difference by this example;

The police knock at my door. They say they are looking for someone who who is wanted. I do not respond, nor do I answer the door. I have not taken any action to thwart their efforts, nor have I assisted them in their efforts. IF they have the legal authority at that point to come in my house anyway, they can and I will take no action to hamper their efforts.

The police knock at my door. They say they are looking for someone who is wanted. I answer the door, and not only refuse to let them search my house, but I also misdirect their efforts by telling them the person has moved to another location and I haven't seen that person for some time (even though he's hiding in my closet). If they have some legal reason to come in my house anyway, I attempt to shut the door and yell out POLICE! Here, I have taken a deliberate action to thwart the pursuit of justice.

Does illustrate the difference well enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only an action can violate someone's rights.
Not necessarily. Miss Rand made clear that there are a number of cases where a failure to act constitutes a violation of rights. For instance, a unilateral breach of contract wherein one fails to deliver product is a violation of rights. So is a parent's failure to support a child.
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...