This is the log of a discussion held on #GeekSpeak. This log is copyrighted by the channel owners Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Copying or redistribution of this log in any form is forbidden without the prior written consent of the channel owners. Copyright 1996 - Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. IRC log started Fri Feb 2 22:00 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. We're resuming scheduled discussions on this channel with tonight's discussion: "The Ethics of Whistleblowing". Before we begin, I'd like to bring to your attention that: 1) Discussions on this channel are copyrighted by myself and Pankaj Saxena (Subetai). You may log the discussion for your own personal use, but you may not redistribute it in any form whatsoever without written permission from the channel owners. 2) The discussion will be held in keyword-mode. If there is someone you would like to invite to the channel (who in your judgment would not disrupt the channel), please message Subetai. Okay, I've finished with the formalities. Let's start the discussion. What I mean by the ethics of whistleblowing is the ethical questions involved in reporting crimes in various contexts. The first factor is whether or not a *real* crime has been committed, a real crime in the Objectivist sense. What type of crimes would you report? All of them? or only the real crimes? Is this a proper standard to consider when you witness an illegal act? (The floor is open) Wright: It depends on what the "crime" is and who you have in mind reporting it to. If someone harassed me, I wouldn't report it to the police, but I might tell the guy's boss. I think that reporting a crime is your way of ensuring that the criminal is punished. I wouldn't want someone punished unless they had committed what I thought *was* a real crime. Sube: Isn't there also the factor of whether reporting a real crime puts you in personal danger? Betsy: That comes later in the discussion BetsyS: You betcha Betsy: Right. I believe Wright is going to bring that up. Wright: I gather you're talking about cases where we wouldn't agree that the act should be a crime, such as prostitution, etc. In such cases, is the context such that the laws would hold you as an accessory to the crime if it was discovered that you didn't report it? Jim: Let's say no for now. Wright: Then, I would think it would be inproper to report someone who has not actually violated rights, even if the law holds the action to be a crime. That would be an interesting question in itself. Report someone for something you don't consider a crime, or put yourself under risk of prosecution. Subetai: Right. Yes> I think it goes along with the question of personal danger Any one else have a comment or question on the first point? Okay. You're asking if it's okay to report, not if it's immoral *not* to report? Right, Wringht? -n Aside from physical danger, then I see nothing wrong with whistleblowing. Tom: even if the crime was not a real crime (no initiation of force) ? Sube: At this point, yes Tom: Okay. Then I think it's okay to report it, if that's what's in your interest. Will the real Subetai, please stand up ;) We're both real, Tom. One of us is logging while the other talks. Sube: Okay to report what is not really a crime, or okay to report a real crime? Wright: A real crime. Okay. Okay, let's move on. The next factor to consider is the government's reaction to a crime. Can you reasonably expect the government to investigate the crime in a judicious manner? For example, would you report a theft in a country where the accused would be thrown in the water to determine his guilt or innocence? Or in a society where the police were hopelessly corrupt? What is the proper standard by which to decide? Wright: I'd need to know that the courts followed objective rules of evidence. And that the punishments fitted the crime, though I'm a bit hazy on how to determine that. Punishment is the next topic Wright: Unfortunately, even in such contexts, if the crime is actually a violation of rights, it would be dangerous to let the crime go unchallenged. Meaning that they followed proper procedure: (1) determine that a crime has been committed. (2) establish beyond reasonable doubt who the guilty party is. Certainly, once should not be intrinsic about reporting crimes. What standard do you use to determine the objectivity of the court system? For example, can one consider the LA courts to be non objectivs beacuse of the "LA four" verdicts? Well, if someone would get fired for not reporting the crime, they should report it. Period. Wright: I think the OJ thing was an aboration. Didn't say OJ, but that will do as well What was LA four? The "youths" that beat the truck driver during the riots Hey Lurch Wright: Oh...that one...well, that was an aboration as well..(I hope). Don't knock L.A. courts. They're one of the few things standing between me and disaster. Heya Tom (and the rest of yah) So, I think it was Subetai that mentioned that the courts would have to apply objective standards.. even if they were not followed 100% of the time You can't base your judgement of whether the legal system is objective on isolated cases. There will be some miscarriages of justice. I think you need to understand what legal theory is based on in this country and make some judgement on that. BetsyS: I appreciate your concern. But if they don't perform well, that is something to knock, for the purpose of promoting better standards that will serve you even better. What about the police? what would it take to destroy all confidence in them? Jim: Of course. In fact, the courts here are better than most. I think I'll frame this most recent paycheck... $1.24 Wright: If they started being very indiscriminate. Wright: If the police were consistently guilty of hiding evidence or carrying out their investigation in a non-objective manner (such as clear cut bias and failure to pay attention to all possibilities), that would be reason not to trust them. Wright: or if their arrests started to becofme politically motivated. Okay. We seem to have that established.. onward... Next topic. What if the government will punish the person convinced of the crime in an unjust, overly harsh manner? For example, an additional penalty added for committing a crime under the influence of drugs? Or just an overly harsh penalty, such as execution for petty theft? What would it take to make you decide that the punishment was so unjust that it would be better to allow it to go unreported? I once reported my boss to the police, who said they'd get him...years later, his product was still being sold...to a new company i worked for ;( Wright: Then one would have to weigh the crime against the punishment...if he stole from me, though, I may still report it. Even if you knew that report would lead to his death? Wright: of course, if it got that bad, then no justice could be counted on anyhow. I'm not sure how to make the punishment fit the crime. In some extreme cases, I have no doubts, such as if they cut off a pickpocket's hand for picking my pocket (as they did in some middle-eastern countries), or killing the criminal for petty theft. But in less extreme cases, I'd probably report him and let him take his chances. Wright: The legal system would have to be so malfunctional in that case, that *I'd* probably be in jail. Wright: You are talking about a very harmful government, one that doesn't respect rights. IN that context, I don't know if justice of any kind is possible. But I don't think the U.S. courts are like that on real crimes. They are by definition too harsh on non-objective "crimes". Wright: Besides, if it was that bad, normal productivity would be so down, that stealing may be the only way to survive. Tom: what if it was just one particular crime, that the gov't wanted to make a point on ? Such as 20 years for burning a cross on your black neighbor's lawn? Tom: Right. Tom = TomM Wright: Given time and values involved, I might take up against the gov as in written essays against them. Wright: Such a man is probably dangerous anyhow. Tom: But would you report a crime if you knew that the punishment was unjustly harsh, compared to the same crime if the aggravating factor wasn't there, such as "racially motivated" crimes? Should that be a concern at all in whether or not to report a crime? Subetai: i'm against differentiating crimes in that manner. Tom: Is that an excuse for an unjust sentence? He's proably dangerous? +b Subetai: Depends on the crime, and if I think the offender would come after me next. The gov't. uses cases to show examples all the time; look at a movie, and you see the court system want to 'make an example' of certain cases--and certain cases get completely irrational sentencing...alot is influenced by the media--when the media extricates some character then consequently, usually the judge is overly harsh. This sort of thing happens in school all of the time. The first person to break the ruels gets expelled, while the rest get What if the crime wasn't committed against you, but someone else? You can report the criminal, but you know that he will get a heavy sentence because it was "racially motivated". Wright: If a man burns crosses in lawns, then he likely to commit other crimes as well. TomM: eah..:-/ Tym: Seriously...he's obviously a man with a criminally bent mind. TomM: that's presumption. <> TomM doesn't know what "eah" means. Tym: Nope, you judge a man by what he says and does. TomM: means "I dunno about that" :) Well, he may or he may not commit more serious crimes. The point is, he's committed one crime against someone's property, for which he should be punished. Tom: so it's okay to punish him for crimes he hasn't yet commited? That is what additional time for repeat offenders is for.. we were discussing "racially motivated" crime Ghaki: Nope...that's not my point...and I don't recommend pre-emptive punishments. Though I don't think there should be "hate crimes" on the books, it doesn't mean I will hesitate to report someone doing a real crime to someone. Ghaki: but if a first offender 'threatens' to commit more racial crimes? The law should be color blind. Midas: assault? Midas: Which he does by burning the cross. TomM: The consideration should not be the hatred the offender bore (except as it bears on intent), but his likelihood of recidivism. But the whole point here is a context where it isn't. Ghaki: perhaps, burning the cross too. TomM: Is there not a point when you would consider the sentence too harsh? Say, 20 years for what is essentially vandalism? DanH: I agree...but if he will permit himself to burn crosses, then who knows what else he will do? TomM: right... Traditionally burning a cross is a THREAT or warning that an assault _WILL_ be commited To punish him for his hate is to raise a concrete to the level of a principle. Midas: Right. If he will steal cars, who knows what else he will do>? steals DanH: i am not advocating punishment for hate, but for threatening another's life. TomM: The point is that you don't punish him for his hatred, per se; you punish him for his likelihood of recidivism, which the cross burning bears on (in establishing a pattern of behavior). Wright: That's why we put him away for a while. Dan: agreed Certainly one should not, and cannot punish on the 'possibility' that further crime will happen. However, if evidence of plans, or direct threat are presented to a court, preemptive punishment is just. DanH: i said that. TomM: I'm referring here to additional punishment, above and beyond punishment for the actual rights-violation committed. I think we're getting off the point DanH: i HAVE ALREADY SAID NO TO THAT. in general--burning a cross is a THREAT of assault, --it is not just vandalization. Wright: I agree with midas here. Dan: exactly. And that is ALL that we are discussing here, not the particular merits of a crime i mean, from my media exposure: A burnt cross means--leave or be lynched. I don't deny that one should be punished for such a crime. DanH: Actually, you punish someone for WHAT HE DID that was wrong, not why he did it or what he might do in the future. Midas: Like getting a kiss on the forehead from Don Thuggino. Okay. Are we agreed that punishment should focus on the nature of the crime already committed, perhaps influenced to some degree by the knowledge (if it can be ascertained) that it was a preliminary to other similar or more serious crimes? BetsyS: but if the nature of the crime IS THREAT? Betsy: what about psycho-stalking? Subetai: especially if the nature of the crime is a preliminary. but--yes agreed. Freeman: that's harassment. Betsy: You think likelihood of recidivism should not be a factor in sentencing? No "three felonies and you get life"? I think so, Sube.. but in any event, I'd like to get to the next point. okay, Tom On to the next point. What about the consequences for the whistleblower? Should a man put is life on the line to testify against a criminal? What if you witnessed the mob committing some crime? They would surely try to kill you if you reported it and decided to testify? Does the nature of the crime matter in this context? DanH: i disagree with the 3 strikes law; unless there is direct evidence that a nother crime will be commited, you dont prosecute based on potentiality. Free: It is what a stalker is DOING (and the threat of force involved) that is the crime. Threatening someone with force is properly a criminal offense. Wright: Sure...you have NO duty to report a crime if your life is at stake (unless you can get very good protection). Wright: whenever it is not beneficial to your well being--in your heirarchy of values--then testifying would be irrational. I don't think it's moral for me to put my life in jeopardy because of another man's irrationality. Subetai: unless retribution is high on your value heirarchy. Of course, if the courts find out you are a witness, they can call you. Midas: Yes, with that caveat. But would it really be in your interest to allow the mob to kill with imopunity? Which it could easily do if all the witnesses kept their mouths shut out of fear. impunity Dan: "3 strikes" is OK because it is based on the premise that the crime WAS no accident, the guy ought to know what he does is wrong, he has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't care, and that he IS a confirmed criminal. Future projections aren't needed to lock him up and throw away the key. Wright: of course not, but one shouldn't sacrifice oneself for "justice". TomM: agreed. BetsyS: but when the nature of the sentense of the 3 strikes law is irrational? like life for stealing pizza 3 times? Betsy: I think the crux of the matter is "projections" - are they in the nature of "conjectures", or is there some evidence that another crime was in fact planned. If they are conjectures based on no physical evidence, they should not influence the punishment. But, betsy is correct in saying that repeat offense is valid indication that another crime will be commited--in which point it IS evidence. but limiting it to '3 offenses' is blindly unreasonable. Midas: I think it should be 3 _violent_ crimes. If it's 1st degree muder, premeditated. 1 strike = death penalty. Freeman: is that a statement or oppinion? Okay.. could we hold off on the "3 strikes" disccusion for now? I think it's morally justified. the death penalty seems unreasonable to me. So does murder. :) AND the death penalty Whether it should be 3 or 4 crimes, etc. is a fine point for the legal philosophers to argue over. I am just saying that there is a point when a person has been proved to have done enough crimes that you treat him much more severely. Back to the topic.. Betsy: agreed. but honestly, with a death penalty--im not arguing that a person might be 'put on the right track' in jail--but if you convict the wrong person? you're screwed! Yeah. On the question of putting yourself in danger by reporting the crime, the answer is that you weigh the consequence of your actions in terms of the values involved. It's a value to put a murderer behind bars. It's also a value to keep living. Midas: I can't argue that. freeman: what? Any other views? When is it a good idea to report on something like the mob? I can't argue the unjustice of finding an innocent man guilty, especially with the death penalty as punishment. Please.. hold the death peanalty discussion until we finish if you convict the wrong person--with the death penalty, there is no way to fix your error penalty Wright: When your life is already in danger. Wright: One instance would be if the mob killed someone that mattered much to me. I wouldn't care a whole lot about the consequences at that point. Tom: granted.. any other times? Wright: See Subetai ;) :) I don't think it could ever be reasonable for retribution to be 'above' consideration of your own life... even if it were your lover... Should I start calling on people? Anything to add, Betsy? i mean--does anyone ever really chose not to live because your wifes murderers arent in jail? Wright: If the threat from the police outweighs the threat from the mob, or if the police find out about you being a witness and finger you for the mob. Wright: Only about the death penalty. ;-) :) Okay, one last point Midas: It's not "above" my life. It's a consequence of holding someone as a value to such a degree that it outweighs any other concerns. I'd still do what I could to make sure that I lived through it. Finally, if there is no real danger to the person, and all of the other criteria set out have been satisfied, is a man acting immorally if he does *not* report a crime? Explain. A legal crime or a real crime? a real crime This is a classic "weighing the hierarchy of values" type evaluation and the personal values involved are very relevant. Wright: I think there is a moral necessity to report real 9obbjective) crimes if one expects the police to do their jobs. Subetai: but how can punishing offenders outweigh any concerns? that seems unreasonable. its not like trying to save the life of a lover--its only retribution. oops -9 +( Midas: But it *is* retribution. TomM: But the mob commits real objective crimes, and you were pointing out earlier why you might not report it morally. TomM: i dont think retribution is that important. It is praciticing the virtue of justice to report those crimes. However, like was said, one is not required to sacrifice oneself. Midas: It's not a "generic" offender. It's someone who's offended a value that was very dear to me. personal hierarchy, like Betsy said. Jim: if your life is at stake. TomM: Right. The context is: no danger to your life wright: IF there was no danger, there is a principled obligation--an obligation to preserve your well being to see that justic is done Midas: Retribution *is* justice. TomM: but is justive ever above any other concerns? Midas: Retribution is justic and very much in your self interest. I know I want to live in a society where criminals can't get away with hurtung people. Okay. our time is up <> TomM wonders how peoples eyes don't freeze up in -40 degree weather? All right, this concludes the moderated discussion. I hope you enjoyed it. The log will be available on Hal9000's file system, an on the #GeekSpeak home page at http://www.hypermall.com/geekspk/geekspeak.html. Feel free to continue this discussion or start a hurtung=hurting new one. Betsy:but would you place that above all other values? i cant imagine it ever being that important to be above any other values. midas: No, but justice is an integral virtue. Now, you may discuss 3 strikes, death penalty and whatever else :) Thanks for the topic Wright. Midas: It's pretty high up there, but it's not my highest value. My peasure pleasure Ken Griffey Jr's new contract? Damn, I'm making a lot of typos tonight TomM: certainly! i just cannot concieve of justice ever being above ALL VALUES, no matter who the offender, no matter what the crime. Wright: yep, a good one. TomM: do you mean retribution as synonymous with revenge or vindication, or merely as payment for damages? I'm confused. priest: Retribution means making him pay for the crime objectively. priest: he means it as both. Holding him responsible for his actions. As a caller to Dr. P's show said, "You do the crime, you do the time." midas: Not above all values...what do you mean by that? Restitution is paying for damages. Pers: You don't have to be open to ideas you know to be false. midas: Justice means you get what you deserve, in a social context, it may well be *the* ruling virtue. oops I have never been able to objectively justify revenge for the sake of revenge. Hi Ryan TomM: if someone killed your wife--would you ever consider it so important to find retribution as to risk your life? priest: Not revenge for the sake of revenge, but reveng for the sake of justice. Movies and books with plots of revenge bore me to tears. What if the the crime was so common that reporting every incident of it would take up a significant amount of your time? (for example: software piracy) midas: Probably...I'd get him first (one way or the other). I can see *that*, Tom :) Hi Wright There's many justifications to punishment: retribution, deterrence (on part of the offender, and on part of potential criminals), etc. Justice is retribution. Prevention through deterrence is an added functionality. WillB: Would it be in your objective intrest to report them all? WillB: in those cases, I think it may be better to harrass the offender. TomM, do you mean an eye for eye as a deterrent? TomM: i've never been in love, but i could certainly imagine risking my life to save a loved one; i could never imagine rsiking my life for justice of her murderer... its just not that important. Wright: I don't think so. Tom: Yes, I agree. priest: Eye for an eye, but not as a deterent, but to get him back and to hold him responsible. Midas: yeah...if you can't bare to live with someone being dead, of course you should risk your life to save them. Will: It depends upon the scale, too.. if someone has one illegal copy of a game, it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble Midas, this is what I'm saying :) midas: it will be ;) Stardust: but if there dead--risk your life to punish? Hi Kalo there=they're Wright: I agree. AR stated that she would take a bullet for Frank (see Playboy interview). I have to go now. I'll come back when I can. Midas: Ever read "The Punisher"? priest: justice == vengeance == retribution. Midas: It all depends. If I feel it is better to punish and suffer the consequences I would. Otherwise, I wouldn;t. Midas: The entire rest of your life will be a punsihment...why not his? Freeman: yes. I have one problem with the "eye for an eye" thing. Criminals are irrational by nature. However, the law is sanctioned by rational people. Therefore, I have a problem with responding to brutality in kind. bye betsy TomM: an interesting argument, but retribution is never that important. Sub: then how to respond to it? Subetai: How else are you going to do it? Give them a lollipop? Tomm: to me atleast Subetai: are you saying the death peanalty is such an instance? penalty Freeman, Tom: Through imprisonment and hard labor. The death penalty, if you can ensure you have the guilty party. But not drawing and quartering. It was my understanding that the only way to deal with brutes is with brutality. Sube: I agree Subetai: i never said anything about drawing and quartering...though if a loved one was killed that way, I'd be for it. Whether or not this is consistent with the behavior of other O'ists or not is not a concern of mine, but with regard to my character, I exhibit a kind of inertia: Subetai: the nature of *all* conviction is based on assuring you have the guilty party; but you may not. Always beyond a reasonable doubt, but at that point, there should be NO doubt in your mind the person did it... there is no varying degree of conviction. Tom: I might be too. But the law has the sanction of everyone, and I cannot expect the person who was killed to have the same personal value to them as he/she did to me. Tom M then you should do the drawing and quartering . I do only what I think is in my rational self interest (or this is a goal). "Why not" is not a "why." what is drawing and quartering? don't ask the the state to do it. Subetai: that is irrelevant...suppose he holds his life as not being valuable at all...does that mean you let him off? Eudor: I wouldn't take the law into my own hands unless it was the only way. TomM: you didn't understand what I said. I said that other people who also sanction the law may not have the same value for the person who dies as I did. Midas -= beign pulled to pieces - rope on each arm/leg - horse (or other pulling machine) on the other end of each rope... Midas: Ripping out someones arms and legs...usually all at one time. Subetai: oh...true, but that's why the law handles it, and not you. A bullet would be easier. The methodology is incendental. Certainly subetai's argument is valid. a sanctioned punishment should not be brutal; hence one reason the death penalty is unreasonable. However, the premise that you convict a person for a severe crime and are not 100% sure of his guilt is irrational--you only convict beyond a reasonable doubt--period. so saying 'being sure he did it' then the death penalty is ok, is an unreasonable statement. TomM: You still didn't catch my drift. Never mind, it's not that important. Midas: "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal standard, not an absolute. midas: Nope...there are times when he and only he could ahve done the crime. Tomm: then you dont convict. Subetai: You are saying that my loved one is not a loved one of anyone else...I agree. midas: There is legitimate legal proof. in no way should one convict in a good court system when you are unsure of guilt. In that case, there are no instances where you're MORE SURE someone did it--thus the dp is ok. you are always 100% sure on a valid conviction, period. midas: Sure...no one is arguing otherwise. If _he_ murdered, the _he_ dies. TomM: but subetai implied that the death penalty is only ok when you are SUPER SURE of his guilt [i think he implied that] Midas: True...that is the standard. Midas: I said that I'd have nothing against the death penalty if there were some way to be absolutely positive that you could never execute an innocent man. And there isn't, to my knowledge. Freeman: eye for an eye as sube pointed out is not smart. for the DP there is always the possibility of a wrong conviction--so its a bad idea. Also, the sheer brutality of such punishment seems illogical to me. Subetai: good point... however there arent varying degrees of probability of guiltiness in court ... you are 100% sure or you dont convict. That's the flaw in the court system: you can hire someone to make you look innocent. but its a contextual sureness to be correct. Midas: Right. But just because you're 100% sure doesn't mean you couldn't have made a mistake. Stardust: no you cant/ Subetai: right, knowledge is contextual. Midas: look at OJ IRC log ended Fri Feb 2 23:22