Philosophy

[Swift]

Ok, I knew taking this Philosophy module would come in useful sooner or later.

I'm going to quote a scenario from my lecturer. Please read through this and post your thoughts about this problem. Thanks.


"Should a son (child) prosecute his parent for murder (or for anything)? The simplest way to approach may be to ask yourself: under what circumstances would you turn your father or mother in to the authorities, if you thought he/she was guilty of a crime? So: answer the question. Really. Think about a range of cases. Now: why did you give the answer you did? Search your soul and find out what your reasons for action are. What rule or principle are you following in deciding, as you do, concerning a range of cases."

[Corsair5]

Tough question. Should the child? Yes. Would the child? Probably not. It depends on how the child was treated by his parents, and what his temperament is.

I would, as calmly as I could, explain the situation as I knew it, and then ask them why. They'd probably present a different side of the story to what I heard, etc, etc.

If it were in cold blood, with the victim's back turned, without hostile intent, etc, then I would at least tell the authorities, but I doubt it would get anywhere, because I probably wouldn't testify.

The reason? It's hard to compromise between the letter of the law and paternal love. One person who was singularly devoted to the law, or who cared nothing for his mother/father, could testify, etc, easily. One who was consumed in blind love would not be able to. While I would LIKE to find out the truth and pursue it, I would LIKELY not, and, instead, give a limp grasp at the law. That's just an honest representation of what I would probably do.

[Swift]

That's a good answer, Corsair, and I encourage you to continue posting in this manner in the future. Keep it up.

Now to address your points. You raised some valid points in your post, especially the part where it's hard to compromise between the law and family. We'd all like the law to be impartial, to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty, but when faced with a situation where our loved ones did something wrong, we feel obligated to protect them from the law.

That is a contradiction. A lot of us have views which contradict with each other, and this is one such view, that the law should be impartial and yet we feel that certain people should be above the law. It's pretty much because we tend to feel that we owe it to our family and friends for their devotion, and to turn them in can be viewed as an act of betrayal.

So, with all that in mind, is there any way out of this problem?

[Corsair5]

No. But, then again, in the case of a DA or a Judge, or a member of the jury having a connection to the Defendant, then they are required to recuse themselves.

However, a son or daughter will feel a desire to protect their families, especially with popular media often portraying cops as the bad guys, and, while you can't blame the problems on that, it certainly doesn't HELP matters any.

The law is always gonna be flawed, there's no way around that. All you have to do is try to minimize the amount of flaws and cover them enough that people hopefully wnon't notice.

[Swift]

Your first paragraph is true. As for your last, let's not jump to that conclusion yet, but explore it together.

I ask everyone to come forward with their views on this topic. What are your views? Which should come first, family or the law? Is there any way to seek a resolution in this case, or is it as Corsair suggested, a hopeless case?

[Jigen]

I can only answer this question by saying that: if I discovered that my mother, or my father, had commited a crime. I would niether prosecute nor turn them into the authorities. I owe more to the man and woman who raised me as best they could than to the state that would throw them in prison while it lets Christopher Skase go free.

To this I add the truth about the law and rules in general: A person has never been punished for doing the wrong thing, only for getting caught.

Knowing my parents as only I do, I know that nothing they could bring themselves to do would be done without some pretty d@mn good justification, and if that justification requires the breaking of a law here and there, then I support it.

[Corsair5]

That's for you, Jigen. And for me, probably, too. But a lot of people have parents that never cared for them, neglected them, literally beat them until their flesh began to strip off their backs, etc.

And you claim that no one has ever been punished for doing the wrong thing, only being caught. What? When you get caught doing the wrong thing, you're being punished for doing the wrong thing. It's not like it's "You made a messup in this robbery, you're going to jail." It's "You Robbed this Guy. You're going to jail."

[Jigen]

But if you get away clean you don't get punished. See where I'm going with this.

They may say they're punishing you for the crime you commited. They may even mean it. But the fact is: Had you gotten away you wouldn't be punished.

Aladdin says it himself: 'Trouble? You're only in trouble if you get caught.' Then (after a quick song and dance) he gets away. He only gets caught later because Jafar coincidentally required him.

[Corsair5]

*Grin* Which Jafar?

But, Seriously. Of course you only get punished by the law if you get caught. Would you prefer after a crime, they went out and killed a couple dozen people? I mean, your point is moot.

[Swift]

Actually, his point does have merit, and that will be the topic for next time, but since we're on this path right now, I want to explore some points you've raised.

It's true that if the parents treat the child well, it may be harder for the child to testify against them, as you've pointed out. But if they ill-treat the child, or never showed him/her love, and if the child testifies against them for a crime they'd supposedly commited, will it be done out of the need to see justice done, or because he/she wants to "get back at them" for neglect or punish them for it. Think about it. If he/she has a grudge, would his/her testimony be unbias?  

Suppose the crime was commited without malice, that the parent had killed someone in self-defence. Would it be right to prosecute the parent then? Would the child's motivation to testify be purely for justice's sake, or for vengence? This is an important point.

Now I'm going to bring up a possible solution to the problem. This was recommended by Socrates, a greek philosopher who was concerned with this family vs law problem, which is labelled as a "Euthyphro" problem, after a priest who prosecuted against his father.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates defends the view that, in an ideal political system, children should be taken away from their parents at birth and raised in communal nurseries. So parents don't know who their children are. And children don't know who their parents are. Advantage: Euthyphro-type dilemmas generated by family loyalty versus the dictates of impersonal justice cannot arise. Can this work, or is there a problem with this solution?

[Jigen]

But, Seriously. Of course you only get punished by the law if you get caught. Would you prefer after a crime, they went out and killed a couple dozen people? I mean, your point is moot.

That makes all of no sense Corsair.  Try again

[Corsair5]

It wasn't supposed to make a whole lot of sense. I was pointing out that your own point, that you only get punished if you get caught, is pointless. Moot.

[Swift]

Ok, to address this point now. Consider our legal system. Can you think of any such case where people were tried and found guilty, only to be found innocent years later? This is a perfect example of being punished for getting caught.

[Corsair5]

True enough. There have been failures of legal systems in the past, and there are a lot more to come. Some criminals are smarter than the cops, and can make a perfectly innocent guy look like a black sheep. But I don't get where you're going with this whole "You only get punished if you are caught" string.

[Swift]

Point is, in theory, only the guilty are caught and punished for their crimes. In practice, nobody will punish you if you did something wrong and weren't found out. If you did something wrong and were caught for it, you'll be punished. If you are innocent, but people think you're guilty and arrest you for it, you'll also be punished. If you did something wrong but weren't caught, you got away with it. That's why some believe that you only get punished for getting caught.