3 ms·

You have a strange sense of justice. He didn't help anyone commit any crimes. He simply opted out of participating. It's not his problem, and he did nothing wro

You have a strange sense of justice. He didn't help anyone commit any crimes. He simply opted out of participating. It's not his problem, and he did nothing wrong. To punish him defies reason. There is a threshold at which you could make the argument that there is a moral obligation to turn in one's friend if they are committing atrocities, but no one can argue that this is an example.

rayiner 13y ago
It's not my particular sense of justice, it's how our justice system is structured and how it always has been. There is a strong presumption that individuals will cooperate with police to help investigate crimes. That's why the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination even exists--it's an exception to our general practice that people can be compelled to testify about crimes. As a general rule, our society does not consider it acceptable to "opt out" of participating in a criminal investigation, especially in a case like this one where the person being asked to help is a suspect by virtue of the circumstances.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Aside from your argumentum ad antiquitatem, I think it is rather presumptuous to speak for "society" this way. For starters, I think both left- and right-libertarians, as well as most journalists, would disagree with you. I would also guess that society in general would be outraged if a journalist was jailed for that particular offense, so what you claim is clearly not universally true. I also disagree that this person is a reasonable suspect, any more than the pizza restaurant, who probably either gave it to a customer as change, used it to pay a vendor, or deposited it. Although the orwellian term "justice system" is undoubtedly convenient for such an argument, I'm going to suggest thhat your statement be read with a substitution of "legal framework" in its place. It's important to remember that law and justice are not synonymous. In fact, a founding father of our "society" himself (Thomas Jefferson) made this distinction: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." So we must ask, was justice served? An honest man unwittingly committed a minor crime of minimal or no public harm (at worst, someone was out $20 or so) and returned to correct his error, making all parties whole. In return, his life is ruined and he is sent to prison, which cost him and the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, at least. The answer is unequivocally no, justice was not served. Edit: It also seems like you're conflating refusing to testify with being an accessory. Your claim was the latter, which is much more serious than contempt of court. Passive concealment by non-participation after the fact is in no way "assisting", by definition, because the crime already happened. If that was the claim, it's absolutely an abuse of the spirit of the law.
  - harryh 13y ago
    When you commit a crime it's not just actually doing the thing that's the hard part. It's also getting away with it. If you don't accomplish the getting away with it bit, well, then you've pretty much failed as a criminal right? The main character in this story assisted in the getting away with it part of the crime. That's an accessory. And it's absolutely a crime to be an accessory, and I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with that. We can't have a civilized society if people don't help the authorities catch the bad guys.

rayiner 13y ago

It's not my particular sense of justice, it's how our justice system is structured and how it always has been. There is a strong presumption that individuals will cooperate with police to help investigate crimes. That's why the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination even exists--it's an exception to our general practice that people can be compelled to testify about crimes. As a general rule, our society does not consider it acceptable to "opt out" of participating in a criminal investigation, especially in a case like this one where the person being asked to help is a suspect by virtue of the circumstances.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Aside from your argumentum ad antiquitatem, I think it is rather presumptuous to speak for "society" this way. For starters, I think both left- and right-libertarians, as well as most journalists, would disagree with you. I would also guess that society in general would be outraged if a journalist was jailed for that particular offense, so what you claim is clearly not universally true. I also disagree that this person is a reasonable suspect, any more than the pizza restaurant, who probably either gave it to a customer as change, used it to pay a vendor, or deposited it. Although the orwellian term "justice system" is undoubtedly convenient for such an argument, I'm going to suggest thhat your statement be read with a substitution of "legal framework" in its place. It's important to remember that law and justice are not synonymous. In fact, a founding father of our "society" himself (Thomas Jefferson) made this distinction: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." So we must ask, was justice served? An honest man unwittingly committed a minor crime of minimal or no public harm (at worst, someone was out $20 or so) and returned to correct his error, making all parties whole. In return, his life is ruined and he is sent to prison, which cost him and the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, at least. The answer is unequivocally no, justice was not served. Edit: It also seems like you're conflating refusing to testify with being an accessory. Your claim was the latter, which is much more serious than contempt of court. Passive concealment by non-participation after the fact is in no way "assisting", by definition, because the crime already happened. If that was the claim, it's absolutely an abuse of the spirit of the law.
- harryh 13y ago
  When you commit a crime it's not just actually doing the thing that's the hard part. It's also getting away with it. If you don't accomplish the getting away with it bit, well, then you've pretty much failed as a criminal right? The main character in this story assisted in the getting away with it part of the crime. That's an accessory. And it's absolutely a crime to be an accessory, and I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with that. We can't have a civilized society if people don't help the authorities catch the bad guys.