Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[ThinkAnarchy]

By the argument you have laid out, I have not concealed evidence seeing as the trial had played out and the video is still easily accesible through the internet. If we carried this over to kiddy porn, is it acceptable to view it if the individual in it has been arrested?

I'll quote your arguement here: how do you know those responsible have already been arrested?  Report it anyway.

With this, we are getting into a different discussion of if an individual should be compelled to report a crime, which I don't think they should. Witnessing a crime is not a crime, or at least it shouldn't be. If I see the chandelier you are about to walk under is loose, and fail to warn you, am I guilty of murder if said chandelier falls on you? If I see someone loosening the bolts holding up a chandelier, and fail to mention it, am I responsible for a death that occurs due to it's collapse. I would argue that the person who loosened the bolts is responsible for murder, but me as a witness has done nothing illegal. Even if I could have prevented a death by saying something, does not mean I'm responsible for the death. The only person responsible is the one who actively loosened the bolts holding the chandelier in place, at least from my perspective.

The argument seemed to come down to "concealment of evidence." As with the Max Hardcore example, if you know the crime has been punished, should the viewing still be illegal? I feel it is a valid question based upon your argument.


Added after initial post:

With the Max Hardcore example, I searched out the video after reading articles about it. I wanted to make my own decision about the charges against him, coupled with a sadistic curiosity on my part. Is the viewing illegal based purely on the viewing, or should it only be illegal if the crime committed in the video has not yet been reported to the police?

Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported. You can easily argue that I "should" report such a crime, but at the same time, I can reasonably assume it has already been reported. If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?

I continue to ask questions because I'm attempting to better understand the reasoning behind this position. I ask for the sake of this discussion, people answer these questions.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported. You can easily argue that I "should" report such a crime, but at the same time, I can reasonably assume it has already been reported. If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?

Actually, if there's a crowd of people witnessing a crime, there's a logical premise to suppose that it hasn't been reported. It's called the "bystander effect". We talked about it a bit in this thread. A related principal is diffusion of responsibility. So, in short, you should probably never assume that everyone else is doing the right thing in those kinds of circumstances.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported. You can easily argue that I "should" report such a crime, but at the same time, I can reasonably assume it has already been reported. If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?

Actually, if there's a crowd of people witnessing a crime, there's a logical premise to suppose that it hasn't been reported. It's called the "bystander effect". We talked about it a bit in this thread. A related principal is diffusion of responsibility. So, in short, you should probably never assume that everyone else is doing the right thing in those kinds of circumstances.

By arguing people should assume the crime has not been reported, does not seem to support the idea it should be required by law to report a crime. By saying it's logical to assume nobody has reported the crime, you have to assume the witnesses understand the "bystander effect." Many people are rightfully ignorant of such a thing, and should not be charged with a crime due to their ignorance.

I fail to see any logical basis that supports passivity being a crime the way active aggression is.

[DeterminedJuliet]

No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.

[ThinkAnarchy]

No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.

I'm not 100% positive of which assumption your directly referring to. I know I have made many assumptions just as others have, but I think it's unavoidable when discussing a topic like this. This is one of those discussions that will be riddled with assumptions though, due to none of us, I hope, having firsthand knowledge and experience with the problem.  

[Sandra Craft]

How do you know if the police know of it?

Does that matter?  You tell them, they take it from there.

It does when the argument is based upon the "concealing of evidence." How can you conceal something the government has already discovered?

I don't think most people would know that, particularly if the material is still online.  To echo Stevil, there's no harm in reporting something more than once.  And as I discuss further below, the inital crime and punishment are not the only issues.

If I see the chandelier you are about to walk under is loose, and fail to warn you, am I guilty of murder if said chandelier falls on you?

Not of murder, but definitely of depraved indifference, which is a crime in some places.  And if I were still able to think anything, I'd certainly consider you complicit in my death.

As with the Max Hardcore example, if you know the crime has been punished, should the viewing still be illegal? I feel it is a valid question based upon your argument.

I don't know what kind of porn we're discussing, but if it involves something illegal then the punishing of Mr. Hardcore is not the only issue -- the illegal material is still being purveyed which, if that isn't illegal in and of itself, I think should be.  As I mentioned, I know nothing of internet law but it seems to me such things can be taken off-line, even if it needs to be done more than once.

Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported.

I don't think that would be an actual problem, it sounds more like pushing an arguement to improbable extremes.  In any case, it's still better to do it than not do it since the kind of result you're suggesting is just as unlikely as the assumption that someone has already reported it.

If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?

I would say you're all guilty of depraved indifference (which I know isn't illegal everywhere) and, yes, of facilitating that rape.

[DeterminedJuliet]

No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.

I'm not 100% positive of which assumption your directly referring to. I know I have made many assumptions just as others have, but I think it's unavoidable when discussing a topic like this. This is one of those discussions that will be riddled with assumptions though, due to none of us, I hope, having firsthand knowledge and experience with the problem.  

?? What? It was the assumption that quoted in my post.

Anyhoo, it's not a big deal. Carry on.

[ThinkAnarchy]

No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.

I'm not 100% positive of which assumption your directly referring to. I know I have made many assumptions just as others have, but I think it's unavoidable when discussing a topic like this. This is one of those discussions that will be riddled with assumptions though, due to none of us, I hope, having firsthand knowledge and experience with the problem.  

?? What? It was the assumption that quoted in my post.

Anyhoo, it's not a big deal. Carry on.

I have simply been responding to so many people in such a short time, I wasn't exactly sure what you were referring too. Seeing as there was no quote in that last post, I wasn't positive you were referring to the quote of the previous post... Forums aren't the most organized venue for discussing things with multiple people, at least not for the way my brain functions.

[DeterminedJuliet]

No worries

[ThinkAnarchy]

I don't think most people would know that, particularly if the material is still online.  To echo Stevil, there's no harm in reporting something more than once.  And as I discuss further below, the inital crime and punishment are not the only issues.

It doesn't matter if people should reasonably assume it has already been discovered or not.

There could be harm in reporting something more than once. Imagine if everyone dialed 911 when 100 people witness a hit and run. All 100 people reporting the same crime, at the same time, would simply hinder other crimes from being reported. That logic does not apply to this exact discussion, but it does accurately suggest that it isn't always good for "everyone" to report a crime.

I understand the argument behind reporting crimes if you're unsure, but I disagree that it should be required by law.

I also differentiate between passive and active concealment of evidence. If you harbor a fugitive, you are directly helping that individual avoid prosecution. If you witness a crime and fail to report it, you are passively allowing that individual to avoid prosecution. I see a major difference between passive and active "concealment."

How can you be an accessory to a crime after that crime has already been committed and the individual convicted? By this line of reasoning, it seems to me viewing child porn would no longer be wrong if the individuals who committed the act have already been prosecuted. You can't conceal evidence after the trial is completed.

If I see the chandelier you are about to walk under is loose, and fail to warn you, am I guilty of murder if said chandelier falls on you?

Not of murder, but definitely of depraved indifference, which is a crime in some places.  And if I were still able to think anything, I'd certainly consider you complicit in my death.

That is simply an example of inaction. There are many logical explanations as to why I wouldn't have warned you. Perhaps I thought the individual loosening the bolts was a trained individual hired to do something with the chandelier. Perhaps, I simply don't like you and didn't care if you died. Regardless of the reason for my remaining silent in that regard, my inaction is not equivalent to the action of loosing the chandelier from it's mount. I understand personally holding it against the individual who didn't say anything, but don't support laws to punish individuals for inaction.

As with the Max Hardcore example, if you know the crime has been punished, should the viewing still be illegal? I feel it is a valid question based upon your argument.

I don't know what kind of porn we're discussing, but if it involves something illegal then the punishing of Mr. Hardcore is not the only issue -- the illegal material is still being purveyed which, if that isn't illegal in and of itself, I think should be.  As I mentioned, I know nothing of internet law but it seems to me such things can be taken off-line, even if it needs to be done more than once.

He produced legal, but sick porn. The man is into urinating on the models, rough sex, and fictional pedophilia. From what I have read about him, and what I have seen first hand, he likes making his actresses appear as young girls. The video that resulted in his arrest was due to the woman telling him to stop in the middle of the shoot and his ignoring her plea. I'm not sure if it can be classified as rape though, because I'm unsure of the wording of the contract she signed.

Regardless, that act was deemed illegal, but the viewing of that video and failing to report it does not equate to withholding evidence. The trial is over and he is in jail, so there is no more evidence to withhold in regards to that crime.

What is the justification, aside from obvious moral reasons, is there for punishing individuals for watching that video?

Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported.

I don't think that would be an actual problem, it sounds more like pushing an arguement to improbable extremes.  In any case, it's still better to do it than not do it since the kind of result you're suggesting is just as unlikely as the assumption that someone has already reported it.

It's not. I posed that question based on reports like this one:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

It's clear those who partook in the rape committed a crime. I don't think it's so clear in regards to those who simply watched and recorded though. There is no way to determine for sure who recorded so their would be evidence to convict, and who recorded to share the video online. I also see no reason why those who did not take part in it, should be punished, for failing to report it. They should have, but I don't think they should be required to.

If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?

I would say you're all guilty of depraved indifference (which I know isn't illegal everywhere) and, yes, of facilitating that rape.

Perhaps of depraved indifference, but not of committing the crime you witnessed. The witnesses are not guilty of facilitating the rape in my opinion either though, seeing is it would have occurred regardless of if they watched it or not.

When you move onto directly encouraging something, it is arguably worse than simply watching, but is still not equivalent to committing the crime yourself. I can see an argument made for that being illegal though. I can't agree that passive indifference should be a crime however.

[Stevil]

I understand the argument behind reporting crimes if you're unsure, but I disagree that it should be required by law.

I am not sure how you can expect society to function if we don't help ourselves and behave as if we belong to the society.

The law and police are simply a necessary function of our own society. If society members do not support these functions then how can society function?
An alternative would be to have a huge amount of resources put into a large police force or to have camera's and surveillance everywhere.

In a perfect world people would be more than happy to support their own society by reporting crimes, providing testimony etc, however it seems we don't live in a perfect world. At times our law needs to coerce society members into reporting crimes, providing testimony etc. This works towards the goal of a functional and stable society.

Just because you are not a member of the police force it doesn't mean that you don't have social responsibilities.

[Crow]

Morality is irrelevant and worthless. Morals are a set of definitions on "what it is to be good" however they are pointless as no code or rule book is needed to be such. In fact I would argue that morality has been used more often than not to do harm under the pretense of doing good, and is used to judge others to create a sense of superiority over others.

I like what the tao te ching says on morals.

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.

If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I understand the argument behind reporting crimes if you're unsure, but I disagree that it should be required by law.

I am not sure how you can expect society to function if we don't help ourselves and behave as if we belong to the society.

I agree societies function best when we help each other, but I don't conclude it should be illegal to not help someone.

The law and police are simply a necessary function of our own society. If society members do not support these functions then how can society function?

I also believe there is a need for police and justice; I simply argue such institutions should be privatized. My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.

An alternative would be to have a huge amount of resources put into a large police force or to have camera's and surveillance everywhere.

The point I was trying to make is that most people who witness crimes and fail to report them are completely innocent. Their passivity does not warrant harassment or prosecution. Their could be other uncivil reasons behind inactivity, but the reason does not seem important to me. It is often times impossible to fully understand a person's motives behind an action or inaction, and laws that "require" people to report things would only result in good citizens being arrested or fined by these laws. It would get some creeps off the streets, but likely at the expense of innocent people.

In a perfect world people would be more than happy to support their own society by reporting crimes, providing testimony etc, however it seems we don't live in a perfect world. At times our law needs to coerce society members into reporting crimes, providing testimony etc. This works towards the goal of a functional and stable society.

And many people do today, but there are too many variables to enforce it by law. I also don't see why an individual should be compelled to testify on another's behalf. I see no reason why I should be required to miss work and lose money to help someone I don't know. It would be nice of me to help that person out, but maybe I can't afford to miss anymore work.

Most people seem to be good, and most people's intentions seem to be just (even if misguided.) Most people, even during inaction are productive and beneficial to society on the whole. I simply see no justification for enforcing action on one individual to help another. Many people will do it regardless of being forced, and the rest shouldn't be compelled to.

Just because you are not a member of the police force it doesn't mean that you don't have social responsibilities.

I don't agree with the idea of social responsibilities. My philosophy is based around the right to own property and the non-aggression principle. The most important thing is the individual and it is how I justify rape being wrong and criminal, among other things. However, failing to report something is not in violation of the non-aggression principle. I think there are far to many laws, and governments will continue to grow and oppress until their inevitable collapse, conquest, or revolution. The same cycle keeps repeating throughout history.

My only responsibility is to not initiate violence against another. My personal code of honor, and political philosophy does not require anyone to report anything, or take action in another's defense. No one is responsible for violence other than the one who committed the violence.

This is why I began searching for limited government philosophies and eventually found the one I like and agree with.

[Stevil]

My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.

I'd be interested to know more about this. Can you please create a thread?

[ThinkAnarchy]

I would like to add. It is often hard, if not impossible to predict the unintended consequences of a law.

Even statutory rape laws result in innocent children being charged and sometimes prosecuted, and child porn laws have been used to do the same.

I have read articles about underage male children being charged with possession of child porn, because they received a nude and often unsolicited picture from a female of their peers. There are also cases of males who were 18 being charged with statutory rape for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend. Something that is legal when he was 17 should not arbitrarily become illegal when he hits 18.

It's because of the illogical nature of such laws I oppose them, not because I condone child porn or statutory rape. Even laws created for the benefit of minors or society as a whole will inevitably be used to persecute innocent people.

I oppose more laws, and most of those currently on the books, for the same reason I oppose the death penalty; sometimes the government abuses it's power or makes a mistake.