3 ms·
this has some faulty reasoning involved as well. There are the following conditions: 1. individual determines correctly the crime is not survivable and does c
by bryanrasmussen 3y ago
this has some faulty reasoning involved as well.
There are the following conditions:
1. individual determines correctly the crime is not survivable and does cover up that fails and you have both crime and cover up.
2. individual determines correctly the crime is not survivable and does cover up with succeeds in covering up crime sufficiently but then the individual gets damage from cover up, since there is a strong suspicion the cover up was of crime the cover up punishment is nearly as bad as crime.
... variations of above until
X1. individual determines incorrectly the crime is not survivable when it was, and does cover up and suffers more from cover up than they would from crime.
These things are of course also hampered by what one hopes for - if you think you will be damaged by crime but not as much by cover up if cover up fails you may still attempt cover up because successful cover up means no damage.
- mike_hock 3y ago3. Individual does cover up, which gets discovered along with a crime, and the individual gets punished for both the cover-up and the crime that was discovered. The cover-up was successful. It hid a much more egregious crime that nobody ever learned about.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoright there are a number of different variations that I didn't add in because I didn't have time - just wanted to show there is more than just "it's not the crime it's the coverup" or "no it's the crime!" going on here.