Ethical Question

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-28 12:04am

I was watching the ridiculously silly film The Life of David Gale the other day and found an interesting situation. The main character, Bitsy, spent a week in prison for refusing to reveal information that would incriminate a pedophile. Her defense was that the information was revealed to her in private, and her journalistic integrity prevented her from ratting out the pedophile.

Did she act ethically, or not? Personally, I think no, she didn't. Journalistic integrity is one thing, but basic human morality is another. The pedophile had likely done unspeakable damage to innocent children, and the morality of putting the pedophile away as soon as possible overrides journalistic integrity, in my opinion.

Thoughts? Comments?

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-07-28 12:12am

--The idea behind not revealing the source is so that journalists can figure out what is actually going on. If they turn in everyone they won't get any information to begin with. So what is more valuable: access to such information on a continuous basis or access to that information only once and getting to exploit it fully?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-28 12:16am

Nova Andromeda wrote:--The idea behind not revealing the source is so that journalists can figure out what is actually going on. If they turn in everyone they won't get any information to begin with. So what is more valuable: access to such information on a continuous basis or access to that information only once and getting to exploit it fully?

In other words, she put her own self-interest (ie- future likelihood of getting juicy stories) above the safety of children. Hardly ethical if you ask me.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-07-28 12:19am

Durran Korr wrote:I was watching the ridiculously silly film The Life of David Gale the other day and found an interesting situation. The main character, Bitsy, spent a week in prison for refusing to reveal information that would incriminate a pedophile. Her defense was that the information was revealed to her in private, and her journalistic integrity prevented her from ratting out the pedophile.

Did she act ethically, or not? Personally, I think no, she didn't. Journalistic integrity is one thing, but basic human morality is another. The pedophile had likely done unspeakable damage to innocent children, and the morality of putting the pedophile away as soon as possible overrides journalistic integrity, in my opinion.

Thoughts? Comments?

I can't see how letting a pedophile get away with it somehow compliments her integrity. Unethical.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-07-28 07:00am

Unethical. She put getting a story above the life of a child. That is morally sick.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-28 07:30am

Durran Korr wrote:I was watching the ridiculously silly film The Life of David Gale the other day and found an interesting situation. The main character, Bitsy, spent a week in prison for refusing to reveal information that would incriminate a pedophile. Her defense was that the information was revealed to her in private, and her journalistic integrity prevented her from ratting out the pedophile.

Did she act ethically, or not? Personally, I think no, she didn't. Journalistic integrity is one thing, but basic human morality is another. The pedophile had likely done unspeakable damage to innocent children, and the morality of putting the pedophile away as soon as possible overrides journalistic integrity, in my opinion.

Thoughts? Comments?

It is commonly (and legally) accepted that Priests (in the confessional), Lawyers, and Spouses have this right. Journalists claiming it seems a bit ridiculous--there's nothing personal nor legal there, in fact, the principle purpose of journalism is to provide information. The press, should not have a peculiar right to information for the sake of a story, which is relevant to the application of the law--and which then might be denied to the law. Essentially this would place Freedom of the Press as more important than the Right to a Fair Trial, instead of being equal, and purely for the sake of the reputation of a single journalist, no less.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-07-29 02:21am

As DW says, the journo just wants to keep ahold of the Pulitizer. And priests can choose to not testify... and coverup child abuse. My, what an appropriate example, Duchess! ~*bows*~

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-29 02:50pm

this is just as ethical as not allowing lawyers and priests and doctors to not give any information.

Not giving information that will lead to people having their freedom taken is ALWAYS ethical

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-07-30 04:27am

NapoleonGH wrote:Not giving information that will lead to people having their freedom taken is ALWAYS ethical

Tell me you're kidding. You realize you're saying that whenever you have information that would lead to someone being arrested for commiting a crime, the ethical thing to do would be to withhold that information???

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-07-30 04:31am

Well..

On the one hand, it's a pedophile. But if a journalist does not have SOME integrity in protecting their sources, journalists will no longer have any sources to inform the public.

Informers, tip-offs.. they will all be endangered if journalists were forced to give up their sources.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-30 11:11am

Batman wrote:
NapoleonGH wrote:Not giving information that will lead to people having their freedom taken is ALWAYS ethical

Tell me you're kidding. You realize you're saying that whenever you have information that would lead to someone being arrested for commiting a crime, the ethical thing to do would be to withhold that information???

If it was given to me in trust, yes the ethical thing is to not disclose such information. If someone tells me something and I have given my word not to give such info out, then yes the ethical thing is not to betray their trust.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 11:19am

NapoleonGH wrote: If it was given to me in trust, yes the ethical thing is to not disclose such information. If someone tells me something and I have given my word not to give such info out, then yes the ethical thing is not to betray their trust.

I understand "my word is my bond", but this guy was hurting children, and could possibly continue. I think the best thing to do in this situation is tell the guy you're going to break your word to his face, then dob him in. Children are more important then your word. And you're breaking your word to a fucking wanker, so who gives a shit?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-30 11:32am

so who cares if he was alleged to have hurt children? Does that limit doctor patient privilage? lawyer patient privilage? When i speak to people and give them my word I hold myself to that same level as i believe all people in this society or any society should be forced to. You can only disclose when you have information relating DIRECTLY to a crime that is about to be committed and by disclosing with prevent this crime from occuring (That is why a lawyer can talk if you tell him you are going to kill someone tomorrow)

But to disclose information about a crime that someone is ALLEGED to have committed without any conviction, sorry but its not a citizen's job to help out the pigs, the pigs can find him themselves.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 11:41am

NapoleonGH wrote:so who cares if he was alleged to have hurt children?

There is no doubt he's a pedophile however, Durran's post made that clear. So would you still keep your word, and run the risk he attacks children again?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-30 12:17pm

the person hasnt been convicted of the crime, thus their status remains alleged.

and yes i would not betray privilaged info unless he revealed to me an intention to committ another crime in which case i would provide info to prevent the crime, rather than necessarily lead to said person's capture. The current penal system is completely out of wack. If i had the least bit of confidence in our system providing rehabilitory treatment then maybe i would consider violating his confidence, but seeing as how the american legal system revolves around punishment rather than treatment, i would not disclose someone's private info, the right to privacy must be held as dear as free speech.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 01:02pm

NapoleonGH wrote:the person hasnt been convicted of the crime, thus their status remains alleged.

The journalist KNOWS he's a pedophile. That means the journalist KNOWS he is guilty. Being convicted means he's guilty through the eyes of the law too. I see no reason why the journalist has to wait for the law to catch up to her [which might not be possible seeing how she's withholding information neccessary for his conviction].

NapoleonGH wrote: and yes i would not betray privilaged info unless he revealed to me an intention to committ another crime in which case i would provide info to prevent the crime, rather than necessarily lead to said person's capture.

What if he told you you can find 3 girls buried in his backyard? No intentions there of commiting a crime, would you still keep your word?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-30 04:32pm

yes of course i would, because quite frankly its not the place of someone who is dealing in privilaged information to let it loose, no exceptions unless an immediate crime is about to occur.

Think Doctor, Lawyer, Priest. I hold myself to the same standards of privilage as they are by the law.

The girls are dead already so not telling the authorities isnt hurting them anyway. So long as i have no reason to expect that immediate harm will come to a specific individual if i do not release my info i see no one who is being hurt by me not telling. In my mind the purpose of any form of RIGHTEOUS criminal punishment is not punishment at all but to encourage the criminal not to repeat the offence. If the person isnt repeating his past transgressions, then the goal of a truely just justice system is already accomplished, so why involve the government unnecessarily?

Also you CANNOT know the person is a pedophile without being a witness to the crime, you can know that the person thinks that they are one, you can know that others claim they are one, but you cannot know unless you have seen it yourself. This is why i say alleged. Until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, you must maintain the mind of a skeptic, the person claiming to be a pedophile could be as crazy as those who claim to be abraham lincoln.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-30 04:55pm

The movie makes it pretty clear that the pedophile in question is in fact guilty.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-30 04:59pm

Does it matter if WE the audience know that the pedophile is guilty? So long as the reporter didnt witness the actions himself/herself the reporter in question could not know beyond all reasonable doubt that the pedophile is guilty, so the crimes remain only alleged to have happened

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-30 05:02pm

Like OJ Simpson was "alleged" to have butchered his wife?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-30 05:28pm

exactly

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ethical Question

Ethical Question

Re: Ethical Question

Re: Ethical Question