Ethical scenario: testifying for a lottery co-winner

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-23 10:59am

Suppose you know two coworkers who decided to get together and spend $500 on lottery tickets pursuing a huge jackpot (say, $20 million lump sum), which they agree to share if they win. We'll call them Jack and Peter. Jack gives Peter $250 to cover his half, and then Peter buys the tickets.

You can probably guess what happens next: Peter wins the lottery, and refuses to give Jack his half. Now, here's where you come in: Jack never got the agreement in writing, so there is no evidence of this contract. However, verbal contracts are legally binding (contrary to popular belief) as long as you can prove that the contract was made. In this case, Jack knows that there is one eyewitness to the contract: you.

So Jack asks you to testify in court to help him recover his half of the $20 million (for the purpose of this scenario, let us assume that Peter is not going to flee the country or that he has been barred from doing so while the case is going through the courts). You agree to do so, but only if he will agree to pay you one million dollars for doing so. Let us assume that you operate the company's internal security monitoring cameras which periodically overwrite their tapes but you actually made a copy of the portion of their records containing their contract, so Peter's lawyers can't accuse you of simply giving "bought testimony".

Is this ethical? On the one hand, an injustice has been done, and you are in a position to rectify that injustice, so it seems as if you would have a moral obligation to testify even without any compensation. On the other hand, it would only be reasonable to charge him something for your time and inconvenience, and although you are charging a rather exorbitant fee, your actions are consistent with the "whatever the market will bear" free-market philosophy of capitalism. Moreover, the company might fire you for making an unauthorized copy of their internal security tapes, so you might need this money to tide you over.

Weigh in, folks!

PS. This is not related to any events in my life or the lives of any people I know. I just cooked up this scenario in my imagination on the way to work.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-08-23 11:14am

I'd do it, I dislike seeing people cheeated out of anything, though I'd like the million, I'll be willing to settle for less.

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2005-08-23 11:22am

I wouldn't feel like I was doing something unethical. Sure, 1,000,000$ is a lot of money for a simple favor, but Jack still gets 9M$, and Peter 10M$. Now unethical for me would be to take say 2M$ from Peter to not come forward with the tape. Doesn't matter if it's Peter coming to me with the idea or me blackmailing Peter. When talking about sums this big, the winner really doesn't need that extra 1M$. If the sum was smaller, and I knew the guy who won the money (or half of it as in this case) was in financial troubles, I'd be more hard pressed to ask for compensation.

-Gunhead

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-08-23 11:31am

I would do it for free and I would make that clear. But if afterwards he was to offer the one mil i would take it. That is at least what i would like to think I would do.

Also if you are being payed 1mil would that not call it to question any evidence you could present.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-08-23 11:38am

I"d do it, I would probably even take the full sum if thats really what he offered up front.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-08-23 11:47am

The unetical part of me would ask Peter if he would like the tapes for $2 000 000

He earns 8 000 000 and I get one milion more.

But I dont know if I would do this or take one mil and live easier with myself.

FireNexus · Post by **FireNexus** » 2005-08-23 11:47am

Glimmervoid wrote:Also if you are being payed 1mil would that not call it to question any evidence you could present.

That's Why you have a copy of the security tape.

That said, working at a convienience store, I regularly ask customers who buy large sum lottery tickets to buy me a car if they win (any car will do), but I don't know if it's ethical to charge such an exorbitant fee. I'd like to think Jack would be willing to give me something for my trouble, after all, he's not the one who screwed over the other guy, and he trusted the guy with 20 million dollars, let alone just the $250 he gave him to begin with.

In my experience, trusting people tend to be more trustworthy.

Also(off topic), I think he's probably better off without the money, anyway. People who get lots of money without being prepared for it like that tend to end up quite miserable. That's another thing I tell lottery custyomers.

Yes, I'm bad at my job, but in my defense, there's no profit in lottery, and lottery customers are annoying.

gizmojumpjet · Post by **gizmojumpjet** » 2005-08-23 11:51am

It's unethical. Truthful testimony is not a commodity subject to the Market.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-08-23 11:53am

FireNexus wrote:
Glimmervoid wrote:Also if you are being payed 1mil would that not call it to question any evidence you could present.
That's Why you have a copy of the security tape.

A tape is hardly un- forgeable and if some one was going to give you 1mil sending a few hundred thousand on a good forgery would be well worth it.

Also how would the tape help if there is not sound (i am yet to see one that has sound) some one could just say that it was a loan or some thing to bye the tickets.

FireNexus · Post by **FireNexus** » 2005-08-23 11:56am

1. Watch the news. There are several security cameras with sound out there. hard to understand, but not impossible. Hell, the store I used to work at had cameras with sound. I know this because I was badmouthing my boss to a good friend of mine (who was also badmouthing her) and we both got bitched at.

2. Where are these security guards who have hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a forgery at? I'd like to meet one.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-08-23 12:01pm

FireNexus wrote:1. Watch the news. There are several security cameras with sound out there. hard to understand, but not impossible. Hell, the store I used to work at had cameras with sound. I know this because I was badmouthing my boss to a good friend of mine (who was also badmouthing her) and we both got bitched at.

Strange i don’t remember ever seeing one. I stand corrected.

2. Where are these security guards who have hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a forgery at? I'd like to meet one.

Good point. I supose a load shark is always an option.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-08-23 12:04pm

Sorry did not copy this bit.

Any way I concede the point since my argument is self defeating (since I am saying that some one would take the risk with a load shark and at the same time argument that the evidence would be bad).

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2005-08-23 12:10pm

I'd help help Jack get his money, but refuse the million straight up. I'd rather mooch off him for the next 30 years through minor favors and the like, unless he's very meticulous, I'd get more for the deed that way. And, I think, It would be more useful in the long run.

But that's the evil me talking.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-08-23 12:13pm

Although it's a slippery work-around to the problem, I would argue that it's unethical to charge more than is reasonable compensation, simply because if you do, you're not serving justice - you're holding it for ransom.

It's not unethical to ask to be compenated, but the problem becomes determining what is 'reasonable compensation' for that kind of task. The scenario gives no justification for the 10% figure - it's just presented as a 'do it or screw it' amount, leaving the victim in the position of either paying up or losing out. Things like lost salary, travel expenses, those are reasonable justifications, not just "Hey, he's loaded, might as well grab a piece of the action". So, I'd suggest that the price is unethical - not the act of asking for compensation.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2005-08-23 12:16pm

Hmmmmm, I'd have to ask my accountant how much of the million i'd have to report on my tax return and then adjust the figure higher or lower. However I could ask for $500,000 from each to keep me from screwing either of them over (not as realistic of an option). At any rate, I need to make at least $250,000 out of this deal.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-08-23 02:04pm

I wouldn't ask for such a high compensation, as that'd seem like a bitchy thing to do. What does it say about you when it takes a million bucks to give in to justice? Whether you like Jack or not, he did deserve all 10 million of his share.

All I can say is, he'd sure as hell better help me out if I got fired for making unauthorized security tapes.

Rahvin · Post by **Rahvin** » 2005-08-23 02:12pm

I'd do it for free. If he wanted to "thank" me by sending some cash after the fact, that's fine, and I'd take it, but my assistance would not be dependant in any way on some monetary reward for doing so.

I would have a moral obligation to provide the tape if I knew that Peter was being dishonest.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-08-23 02:26pm

I would say it's ethical to charge Jack the cost directly related to your testimony, but other than that it is you duty to promote justice in society. Testifying to set things right after a crime has been committed is expected of you.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-08-23 02:37pm

In order to make your testimony worthwhile, you'd have to divulge that you made copies of security tapes. In other words, Jack is asking you to put your job on the line to back him up as best you can. If you don't ask for a part of the money, you're risking your job for no potential reward.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to ask for an agreeable proportion of the award Jack would receive as a result of your testimony and evidence disclosure.

And please folks. How many of you, in this exact situation, wouldn't make a grab for a million of two of your own? Argue about how it's unethical all you want, but at the end of the day, a million dollars out of 20 million willingly given to you for risking your job isn't going to plague your conscience on your death bed.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-08-23 02:38pm

I'd do it. It's a win-win situation for him and for me. He gets more money, I get more money, and justice is served.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2005-08-23 02:44pm

I think copying the tapes for the sole purpose of getting Jack to pay you $1,000,000 is unethical. I'd still do it. Plus you have to weigh your unethical behavior against what Peter did. Is it better for Peter to be a dickhole and cheat Jack out of $10,000,000 and walk away with all of the money, or is it better for Jack to get most of his share, and for you to get some of it too? Yeah, I'd do it.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-08-23 02:49pm

I think the price is a little steep for this to be ethical. On the other hand, I don't think it would be unethical to remind him that he owes you a BIG favor for this, since I'm risking my job to make him a millionaire. A college fund for all my kids would be a nice return payment.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2005-08-23 03:29pm

Publicly refuse the million, but with a private wink to Jack. If he chooses to patronize you with favors, good. If he doesn't, then more likely than not you would have not won the case, since your witness would be seen as biased.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2005-08-23 06:38pm

I'd probably ask for the money up frount, then go through with testifying even if he refuses to pay me

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-08-23 06:45pm

bilateralrope wrote:I'd probably ask for the money up frount, then go through with testifying even if he refuses to pay me

How the hell are you going to get the money up front if the guy needs you to go to court with him in ordered to get it?