Should the justice system reward betrayal?

[Narz]

As its currently set up the justice system rewards ratting out your friends/family/people who trusted you. In other words its rewards a behavior that is universally considered unethical & shameful, often near the top the list of MOST immoral things you can do to someone.

I'm not talking about "he went that way" tip giving but turning in a friend or associate to avoid punishment yourself.

Are all modern justice systems use this ratting for leniency or dropping of punishment altogether system? When did it start historically? Are there any justice systems that actually punish rats (besides organized crime justice)?

 

[Borachio]

According to the shreds of moral compass that I inherited (if I can summon them from the depths of memory and dust them off): if a close relative commits a crime, it's your duty not to turn them in to the authorities, but to persuade them to turn themselves in.

 

[Berzerker]

the betrayal is the crime and the silence of those who know about it

 

[Borachio]

Does that statement make any sense?

And "the silence of those who know about it" is what?

 

[Narz]

the betrayal is the crime

That doesn't logically follow. No one swears an oath to never break any laws. Certain crimes are betrayals but not all crimes. I don't see how smoking some bud alone in your room or jaywalking at 3am are betraying anyone.

 

[Borachio]

That's not what I understood. I understood him to be saying the betrayal is the crime. Not the crime is the betrayal. It's right there in the order of the words.

I still don't understand the second half, though.

 

[Synobun]

From what I gather, the concept of reducing a sentence or letting someone go if they provide information is that the impact on public safety/crime is greater than if they focused solely on the person they have in custody at that time. Busting an entire drug ring, for example, is more impacting and more beneficial to society than locking up a single drug offender.

I don't believe in the concept of a "snitch". Family and friends should expect to be turned in if they admit a serious crime to others. I don't understand the belief system that suggests personal sentimentality trumps everything else. A murderer is a murderer, a rapist is a rapist, whether they are close to you or not.

Providing benefit to someone if they provide information is, in my eyes, a necessary evil. Some people are only caught through the "betrayal" of an associate. It's a better move for society in the bigger picture. Messy in the smaller picture, though.

 

[Borachio]

Supposing a close relative murders someone in order to protect someone else?

Supposing a close relative had successfully assassinated Hitler, for example. Would you have turned them in for being a murdering murderer, willy-nilly?

 

[Synobun]

Supposing a close relative murders someone in order to protect someone else?

Supposing a close relative had successfully assassinated Hitler, for example. Would you have turned them in for being a murdering murderer, willy-nilly?

Context is required in any big decision like that, of course. Everyone thinks they're the hero (usually), so I'd need to base it off of my own perspective. If there isn't enough evidence to suggest that they were right to commit the crime, then I'd turn them in. This decision would change if I lived in a country with a third-world quality justice system, but I can fairly trust the Canadian government to do a suitable job if the facts are clear enough.

 

[Berzerker]

Does that statement make any sense?

And "the silence of those who know about it" is what?

Sorry, that wasn't stated clearly... "The betrayal is the crime" means the crime is the betrayal of the victim's rights and civil society - the Golden Rule - as opposed to the "rats" exposing the criminal in exchange for less time. Morality or justice requires exposing that betrayal, thats the idea behind confession. The "silence of those who know about it" refers to the people hiding the betrayal from justice, their silence is also a betrayal.

That doesn't logically follow. No one swears an oath to never break any laws. Certain crimes are betrayals but not all crimes. I don't see how smoking some bud alone in your room or jaywalking at 3am are betraying anyone.

You introduced morality into the equation, the drug war is immoral. So if you're busted for smoking a bud and you turn on your friends who sold it to you, thats another story... You'd be scum in my book.

But for actual crimes that have victims and are indeed immoral, silence is not golden. Now I did not appreciate how a thug like Whitey Bulger stayed out of jail by informing on other thugs, but they were all thugs. Better to get some of them by cutting deals.

I think

 

[Bootstoots]

Of course it should. It makes for fun game theory!

 

[Camikaze]

Probably worth noting that it doesn't just reward betrayal through soft measures like charge bargaining, but in some situations demands it. For example, in my state you're liable to two years imprisonment if you believe a serious indictable offence has been committed, you believe you have information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender, and you don't bring that information to police.

 

[LucyDuke]

In other words its rewards a behavior that is universally considered unethical & shameful, often near the top the list of MOST immoral things you can do to someone.

I'm not sure about universally. The "betrayal" part alone, yeah, but you're necessarily turning in a criminal. The moral weight of that can obviously outweigh the betrayal.

I don't know how criminal conspiracy could be effectively policed without such incentives.

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem is that prosecutors let snitches lie so they can nab the non-snitch, even if the snitch is the one that should really be locked up.

 

[PhroX]

By comitting a crime, they betrayed my trust in them. Thus I have no reason to remain loyal to them.

 

[Grisu]

That doesn't logically follow. No one swears an oath to never break any laws. Certain crimes are betrayals but not all crimes. I don't see how smoking some bud alone in your room or jaywalking at 3am are betraying anyone.

yeah, but I doubt that the authorities would offer you a deal to ignore whatever crime you've done if you turn in a jaywalker or casual pothead...those deals usually are reserved for bigger crimes, no?

on topic: I think it's ok to lower the sentence of someone if he's willing to cooperate in solving a bigger crime (for example lowering the punishmend for somebody who sold a gun illegally to catch the guy who murdered someone with that gun). But the punishmend should be in no case be completely removed. What I do object to is if someone avoids prosecution entirely just by turning in others.

 

[Borachio]

Sorry, that wasn't stated clearly... "The betrayal is the crime" means the crime is the betrayal of the victim's rights and civil society - the Golden Rule - as opposed to the "rats" exposing the criminal in exchange for less time. Morality or justice requires exposing that betrayal, thats the idea behind confession. The "silence of those who know about it" refers to the people hiding the betrayal from justice, their silence is also a betrayal.

Oh, right. I think I see what you mean.

I don't agree with you though. I just couldn't dob someone in myself since it requires such a great deal of judgement on my part. Judgements that I'm really ill-equipped to make.

Amongst many other factors: I'd have to be sure that the act had in fact been committed (supposing someone mentally ill confessed to a crime they hadn't done?), that the criminal system was justified in making such an act illegal, that the person concerned wasn't justified in their acts in this particular instance, that the person could be assured of a fair trial, and that punishment through the judicial system was likely to be appropriate, proportionate and able to effectively rehabilitate the offender rather than make matters worse.

Am I capable of making such judgements fairly and accurately? I highly doubt it.

If others think they are, and they're confident that the judicial system actually works, I say more power to them. Though I can't help feeling they're being a little unrealistic.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Many murders go unsolved in Sweden because there's no incentive to witness. Mostly criminals that die this way, but not always. It's a matter of preference, I guess.

 

[classical_hero]

By comitting a crime, they betrayed my trust in them. Thus I have no reason to remain loyal to them.

Brilliantly said.

 

[Borachio]

Well, we all make mistakes, don't we? I'm not sure that making a mistake is grounds for condemnation and the severing of all familial ties, by itself.