Informing on lawbreakers: Good or Bad?

[Solauren]

My response is almost always situtational.

If someone is physically hurt by the crime, I will report it.
If someone is mentally hurt by the crime, odds are I will report it. I can see a few instances of 'you had it coming' as possiby scenarios, but those are unlikely.

If no one was hurt physically or mentally, it would depend on the crime.

i.e Speeding - illegal.
Speeding down a long road with no one else on it out in the middle of nowwhere. Victimless crime.
Anywhere else, I'd warn them about it, and carry through if the speeding was excessive or repeated. (2 miles over the speed-limit could be a odemeter error, but 20 miles an hour over, I'm reporting you)

It would really depend on the crime.

[Turin]

Seeing how screwed up those neighborhoods are is one of the best arguments in favor of a cultural mentality where people aren't afraid to go to the police. Unfortunately, it may be all but impossible to fix in places like North and West Philly. You can't change that sort of thing from the outside.

Sure you can, it's called gentrification. But that doesn't really "fix" the problem, does it?

I know a person that will call the cops if you park the wrong way.

The problem in some communities becomes that because people don't ever call the cops, no one expects that you'll call the cops, and therefore certain thugs act like they have the run of the place. At that point you have little recourse except to keep your head down or call the cops. But the cops don't come for what should be trivial things in those neighborhoods, and the cycle continues.

Lest this whole tangent be seen as a thread-hijack, I can tie it back... the point is that this is a question of consequence-based ethics, rather than rule-based ethics. Context matters.

[Knife]

Shit like a kid stealing some gum or a person smoking pot - it's perfectly acceptable for individuals to step in and discipline the individual without involving law enforcement.

I'd love to see someone flag down a police car because their 6-year old brother took a candy bar. The cop would probably make them put it back and give the older sibling a dirty look, like "You couldn't handle this yourself?"

Incorrect. If the store in questions catches you shoplifting, even a fucking tootsieroll, the cops will be called, the kid will recieve a ticket to show up for court and the chances are the kids parents will be called to come get their kid so the cops will turn the child over to them.

For a candy bar, the child would probably recieve something in the order of 10-20 hours of comunity service and a fine, probably under a 100 bucks.

Granted, that's the store catching you. If your relitve flagged down a cop, I assume it's up to the parents how hard they want to push. But I do know that if the parents want the kid ticketed, the kid will get his ticket to go to court.

[Kanastrous]

If no one was hurt physically or mentally, it would depend on the crime.

i.e Speeding - illegal.
Speeding down a long road with no one else on it out in the middle of nowwhere. Victimless crime.

The problem with that, is that it's a matter of luck.

Within the last week or so, we've had two separate street-racing crashes; in the first a mother and two kids burned to death in their car when one of the racers collided with them, and in the second one child is on life support (not expected to survive), the second in critical condition and their mother is going to be losing her legs.

It's likely that in both cases, all four of the street-racers believed that they were racing on a nice patch of clear road with no one on it.

And now three people - possibly four - are dead, and another three scarred for life just because some assholes decided to have some fun and hey - the road's clear, right, so it's not like racing or speeding on it's a crime.

I've driven straight roads at night where objects (stalled trucks, cattle) are invisible until your headlights hit them, and if you are speeding, the odds that you will hit and kill someone (or yourself, but frankly, you'd deserve it) go up dramatically.

You don't discourage speeding because speeding is somehow intrinsically bad; you discourage it because it's a common ingredient in fatal and crippling accidents - including plenty, where the road was "clear," so far as the drivers were concerned.

The fact that someone may speed along on some straight patch of road without incident, is luck on their part. And that luck could just as easily go the other way.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Shit like a kid stealing some gum or a person smoking pot - it's perfectly acceptable for individuals to step in and discipline the individual without involving law enforcement.

I'd love to see someone flag down a police car because their 6-year old brother took a candy bar. The cop would probably make them put it back and give the older sibling a dirty look, like "You couldn't handle this yourself?"

Incorrect. If the store in questions catches you shoplifting, even a fucking tootsieroll, the cops will be called, the kid will recieve a ticket to show up for court and the chances are the kids parents will be called to come get their kid so the cops will turn the child over to them.

For a candy bar, the child would probably recieve something in the order of 10-20 hours of comunity service and a fine, probably under a 100 bucks.

Granted, that's the store catching you. If your relitve flagged down a cop, I assume it's up to the parents how hard they want to push. But I do know that if the parents want the kid ticketed, the kid will get his ticket to go to court.

But it's not the sort of thing any sane relative would report a child for. Jesus, I mean, we're talking about kids at an age who are still digesting this conflicts. You discipline them as severely as humane treatment allows and make it very clear that it was wrong--including destroying the candy bar, obviously--but to give your six year old a juvenile record? That would be a malicious act that proves you're unfit for parenting. Generally speaking I'd only start to involve the police around 13 or 14 for misdemeanor level offenses. Before that they could and should be dealt with internally whenever possible.

[Kanastrous]

I think you're doing a kid more of a favor by involving the cops to scare the shit out of him, than by letting it slide, or just disciplining him, yourself. Assuming that the cops don't choose to escalate the situation beyond what it is.

A police officer or two, in uniform, will make it a lot clearer that stealing brings the risk of strangers with guns, enforcing the law on your ass, than just a lecture or no-dessert or go-to-your-room, from one's parents.

Better to absorb the lesson with a good scare when you're a young minor, than for bad/criminal habits to continue developing to the point where they could land you in really, truly serious trouble, with worse consequences, down the road.

[General Zod]

Generally speaking I'd only start to involve the police around 13 or 14 for misdemeanor level offenses. Before that they could and should be dealt with internally whenever possible.

Shoplifting is a misdemeanor though. It's just a very low level misdemeanor if you're talking only a few dollars worth of stuff. (Not that I'd advocate turning your own kid over to the cops for it per se).

[General Zod]

Generally speaking I'd only start to involve the police around 13 or 14 for misdemeanor level offenses. Before that they could and should be dealt with internally whenever possible.

Shoplifting is a misdemeanor though. It's just a very low level misdemeanor if you're talking only a few dollars worth of stuff. (Not that I'd advocate turning your own kid over to the cops for it per se).

Ghetto edit: Misread the post, so, er, feel free to ignore this one. Nevermind.

[Dark Flame]

I think you're doing a kid more of a favor by involving the cops to scare the shit out of him, than by letting it slide, or just disciplining him, yourself. Assuming that the cops don't choose to escalate the situation beyond what it is.

Wouldn't the cops give the kid a juvenile record, and some kind of community service or fine? That's far more than is necessary for a kid that stole a candy bar.

A police officer or two, in uniform, will make it a lot clearer that stealing brings the risk of strangers with guns, enforcing the law on your ass, than just a lecture or no-dessert or go-to-your-room, from one's parents.

Maybe the parents need to do their own enforcing, to a degree. If the parent can't discipline their child effectively, then what kind of parents are they?

Better to absorb the lesson with a good scare when you're a young minor, than for bad/criminal habits to continue developing to the point where they could land you in really, truly serious trouble, with worse consequences, down the road.

I agree, but I think the parents should be the ones to do it in that situation.

And to stay on topic, I agree with Solauren. It depends on the situation, and the harm or potential harm that could be brought to others.

[Kanastrous]

Wouldn't the cops give the kid a juvenile record, and some kind of community service or fine? That's far more than is necessary for a kid that stole a candy bar.

They wouldn't necessarily do more than give the kid a good talking to. Which, when I was a kid, parents would sometimes ask them to do.

If a kid is a habitual thief, the cops going further and his acquiring a juvenile record might not be a bad thing. Especially since a juvie record is sealed at 18; it's not like a few petty underage shoplifting beefs are going to dog someone for life.

Maybe the parents need to do their own enforcing, to a degree. If the parent can't discipline their child effectively, then what kind of parents are they?

I'm not proposing police scare-tactics as a substitute for parenting. But for some kids, some behaviors, and some occasions, it might be helpful.

I agree, but I think the parents should be the ones to do it in that situation.

The grade of scare a uniformed cop can throw into a kid, is different from the scare that his parents can inspire. If the latter isn't working out, the former can be a useful adjunct.

[Junghalli]

I think it would depend on the severity of the offense. Definitely I wouldn't shelter a violent criminal. Any ethical benefits to that person are outweighed by the number of people I put in danger by allowing a dangerous man to avoid capture. And while I would feel somewhat shitty turning in a family member, the same is true for them. I don't see why I should feel any overwhelming loyalty to somebody just because we have a few genes in common, and a violent criminal is no friend of mine. If they killed somebody in self-defense or something they can prove it in the court of law.

If it was something minor like littering I probably wouldn't. Yes, I realize society would be better off if nuisance behaviors were eliminated but turning in my family and friends for minor offenses like that strikes me as the act of a royally pious pain in the ass, not to mention a great way to make needless enemies.

As for the OP's original example, those selfish pricks can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. If they're being a public nuisance and refuse to be accomodating you have every right to complain to the police about them. As you said, the "it's cowardly to involve an authority figure" argument is always a favorite of dickheads and bullies, because that way as long as they make sure to pick on people weaker than themselves they can get away with anything. I have little respect for such a moral philosophy.

[Junghalli]

Ghetto Edit: as for inbetween offences like theft or drug use, I think it depends on the severity. In theory I'd be in favor of turning in somebody for any serious violation of the law, but in practice I can imagine lots of cases where the personal fallout for doing so just wouldn't seem worth it for me. Somebody hooked on heroin I'd turn in, somebody who stole a purse I might or might not keep my peace about.

[Superman]

Every situation is unique and has its own set of consequences. In your situation, you had a large number of drunken idiots. Even if you were the type to get into a fight, you'd have an army of drunks on you. If I couldn't sleep or get any work done because of them, I would have called the police too.

[Kanastrous]

Somebody hooked on heroin I'd turn in, somebody who stole a purse I might or might not keep my peace about.

That seems damned odd.

Heroin use - isolated, in and of itself - is as victimless a crime-by-definition as there is. There is one victim, who chooses to victimize himself, and while sitting there on the nod, is about the least dangerous (or mobile, or coherent) person you could hope to see. If you want to expand the circle-of-effect by a step, you bring in the family/friends/etc who are impacted by the junkie's addiction - but since as a society we obviously have chosen to accept the effects of alcohol on the abusers' friends and family, singling out heroin for those effects would be hypocritical...

On the other hand, you're more likely to cover for someone who stole from someone else. Now, maybe the victim was a widowed grandma and now she doesn't have the money to buy her food and medicine for the week, or maybe the victim is a rich girl who can laugh the loss off - but either way, you're choosing to ignore a crime with a definite victim who's suffered a definite loss.

Choosing to help nail someone for their own private behavior, directly harming no one else, while choosing not to help nail someone who directly harms others, is just...strange.

[Eulogy]

Heroin use - isolated, in and of itself - is as victimless a crime-by-definition as there is. There is one victim, who chooses to victimize himself, and while sitting there on the nod, is about the least dangerous (or mobile, or coherent) person you could hope to see.

How do you think the junkie gets the heroin in the first place? Illegal drugs are not cheap, and if the junkie can't pay for it himself (often times making himself broke) then he will steal, burgarize, and even murder to feed it.

Victimless crime, my ass. The very nature of drug addiction means that the junkie will go to great - and evil - means to ensure that he keeps the powder flowing.

And if the junkie is a family member, it would behoove you to turn in his ass - not only to stop him from hurting and stealing from other people, but to help him kick the addiction.

[General Zod]

How do you think the junkie gets the heroin in the first place? Illegal drugs are not cheap, and if the junkie can't pay for it himself (often times making himself broke) then he will steal, burgarize, and even murder to feed it.

Victimless crime, my ass. The very nature of drug addiction means that the junkie will go to great - and evil - means to ensure that he keeps the powder flowing.

And if the junkie is a family member, it would behoove you to turn in his ass - not only to stop him from hurting and stealing from other people, but to help him kick the addiction.

Jail will not do much to help someone who's severely addicted to a drug like heroin and may make their problem worse. A rehab center would have a better shot at helping if they haven't gotten to the stage of committing anything serious to feed it.

[Junghalli]

Choosing to help nail someone for their own private behavior, directly harming no one else, while choosing not to help nail someone who directly harms others, is just...strange.

Because by keeping quiet you're enabling their addiction, and enabling an addict is actually harming him. The last thing he needs is for the people around him to provide him an environment that supports his habit.

A shop owner who gets a piece of merchandise like a purse lifted is victimized, yes, but he has a much less serious problem than an addict does. It wouldn't be anything more than a small inconvenience to anyone but a very small retailer. When I referred to stealing a purse I was thinking more in terms of shoplifting - stealing somebody's purse with their money and ID inside would be considerably more serious, and I'd be much more likely to turn somebody in if they did that.

[Kanastrous]

Because by keeping quiet you're enabling their addiction, and enabling an addict is actually harming him. The last thing he needs is for the people around him to provide him an environment that supports his habit.

Are we applying the same standard to smokers and drinkers of alcohol? Are we smacking ciggies out of people's hands, or dragging them out of bars, in order to provide an environment that doesn't support their habits?

I ask because nicotine addiction is famously more difficult to permanently kick, than heroin, and because the violence, crime, and physiological damage done to drinkers by their habit are much more widespread, than heroin abuse and its consequences.

Or are we supposed to perceieve heroin and its side effects differently, just because some legislators coughed up some paperwork describing heroin as 'bad' while leaving tobacco and alcohol to be regarded as somehow 'good?'

A shop owner who gets a piece of merchandise like a purse lifted is victimized, yes, but he has a much less serious problem than an addict does.

Although unlike the addict, the shop owner's problem is not self-inflicted and self-perpetuated. Which I think makes a very big difference.

It wouldn't be anything more than a small inconvenience to anyone but a very small retailer.

The investment of resources in anti-theft programs made yearly by big huge retail chains, every year, suggests otherwise. They clearly find themselves suffering more than a 'small inconvenience' from theft out of their stores.

When I referred to stealing a purse I was thinking more in terms of shoplifting - stealing somebody's purse with their money and ID inside would be considerably more serious, and I'd be much more likely to turn somebody in if they did that.

Okay, the use of a 'purse' as an example suggested theft-from-an-individual, to me. But it still doesn't mean that retailers - of any size - can afford to be thieved from.

[Junghalli]

Are we applying the same standard to smokers and drinkers of alcohol?

Assuming they're addicted, yes. I'd feel the same imperative in the case of an alcoholic.

Or are we supposed to perceieve heroin and its side effects differently, just because some legislators coughed up some paperwork describing heroin as 'bad' while leaving tobacco and alcohol to be regarded as somehow 'good?'

Actually, yes, because in the real world your ability to help an addict against his will is much more constrained if they're addicted to something legal.

Although unlike the addict, the shop owner's problem is not self-inflicted and self-perpetuated. Which I think makes a very big difference.

Yes, but not enough to outweigh the fact that a store owner who has a purse lifted is in much less trouble than someone who is hooked on a highly addictive illegal drug.

The investment of resources in anti-theft programs made yearly by big huge retail chains, every year, suggests otherwise. They clearly find themselves suffering more than a 'small inconvenience' from theft out of their stores.

True. As I said, ideally, I would hand in a shoplifter. It's just that realistically I might not feel that making an enemy is worth it for me.

[Messon]

I have an interesting scenario for you. While I was taking a foreign language test, I noticed that the person beside me had his cell phone out and was using the keypad in some manner. I don't know if it was internet access or text-messaging, all I knew was that the glow of the screen caught my eye.

Now I was faced with a delima. Technically, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself in that situation, and even then it's debatable. In all likelihood he wasn't planning on pursuing it after he was done with it, and he was only taking it as a requirement. On top of that, how much help could you possibly get from the internet/text-messaging on a cell phone?

But then I felt indignant about it because while these things are true, it was still a resource that nobody else had, and while he was probably doing it out of desperation, I was sure that there were other desperate people in that room who weren't cheating.

Then I decided. I took my test up with me and informed the teachers at the head that he had a cell phone out. Unfortunately it was dead silent in the room and the teacher wasn't a native speaker of English, so it took a little more than me being subtle about it to get the point across.

I return to my seat, felling confident that my 'anonymous tip' would be at least less than incriminating against me. Well, first of all that was stupid in the first place, of course he would know I told on him, but to make matters worse the teacher went up to me and said "is this the guy?" to the wrong person so I had to point the guy out. They took his cell phone away, but they didn't kick him out or anything like that at least.

I had to sit next to him for the rest of the test, which was uncomfortable to say the least, and he left the test room about 10 minutes after that occurred.

So, was what I did morally wrong? Did I just tattle tell on a victim less crime? I don't know, honestly. If I had to do it again I would, though. He took a calculated risk, and it just didn't roll in his favor.

[Darth Wong]

If no one was hurt physically or mentally, it would depend on the crime.

i.e Speeding - illegal.
Speeding down a long road with no one else on it out in the middle of nowwhere. Victimless crime.

Do you believe that putting other peoples' lives at risk is a victimless crime, so long as the risk is not converted into death or injury? Or do you believe that when you speed on what you believe to be an empty road, there is no risk?

Suppose I play Russian Roulette, but instead of pointing the gun at me, I point it at you? Suppose I laugh, tell you there's a 1 in 6 chance of a bullet being in the firing chamber, and then pull the trigger? *click* Ha ha, nothing happened! Victimless crime, right? After all, I didn't harm anyone; I only put you at risk.

[Sarevok]

I have an interesting scenario for you. While I was taking a foreign language test, I noticed that the person beside me had his cell phone out and was using the keypad in some manner. I don't know if it was internet access or text-messaging, all I knew was that the glow of the screen caught my eye.

Now I was faced with a delima. Technically, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself in that situation, and even then it's debatable. In all likelihood he wasn't planning on pursuing it after he was done with it, and he was only taking it as a requirement. On top of that, how much help could you possibly get from the internet/text-messaging on a cell phone?

But then I felt indignant about it because while these things are true, it was still a resource that nobody else had, and while he was probably doing it out of desperation, I was sure that there were other desperate people in that room who weren't cheating.

Then I decided. I took my test up with me and informed the teachers at the head that he had a cell phone out. Unfortunately it was dead silent in the room and the teacher wasn't a native speaker of English, so it took a little more than me being subtle about it to get the point across.

I return to my seat, felling confident that my 'anonymous tip' would be at least less than incriminating against me. Well, first of all that was stupid in the first place, of course he would know I told on him, but to make matters worse the teacher went up to me and said "is this the guy?" to the wrong person so I had to point the guy out. They took his cell phone away, but they didn't kick him out or anything like that at least.

I had to sit next to him for the rest of the test, which was uncomfortable to say the least, and he left the test room about 10 minutes after that occurred.

So, was what I did morally wrong? Did I just tattle tell on a victim less crime? I don't know, honestly. If I had to do it again I would, though. He took a calculated risk, and it just didn't roll in his favor.

You should consider the risk vs gain before doing the right thing. Here you gained nothing but a potential enemy, but going by your post you will not run into this guy again. But there are circumstances where informing on dangerous people stronger than you is just foolish. What is ethical is not always practical in life.