Should lawbreakers always be punished?

[kentuck]

One of our favorite DU'ers posed this questioned in another discussion:

"say someone leaked classified information that prisoners at gitmo had been used for illegal medical experimentation, would that leak still be wrong in your mind? "

What is your opinion on this question?

[think]

1. No. Exposing crime should NEVER be a crime.

[ananda]

2. Good grief.

Why would any leak ever be wrong?
The truth is just the truth.

[pipi_k]

17. Truth is the truth...

so, say your doctor leaks certain confidential medical information to your employer, who can't legally fire you, but who can make your life pretty miserable in some nastily passive aggressive ways.

Is that leak OK?


Most of us use a pseudonym here. Would it be OK for someone with information on our real names, addresses, and phone numbers, not to mention our SS numbers and financial standings to leak that information to the rest of the community?

I dunno...I'm kind of thinking that the leaking of information is only really OK when it doesn't involve us personally, right?

Which would make the reply:

Why would any leak ever be wrong?
The truth is just the truth.

a bit suspect, IMO.

[WovenGems]

3. Jury nullification

So, nope.

[GeorgeGist]

4. Laws aren't always right.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Sure they should, this sounds like a lot of bleeding hearts for Snowden

[graham4anything]

6. Valerie Plame's leakers should have gone to jail for decades. nt.

[treestar]

7. Almost always

And not every leak is automatically right. You came up with an example but of course that is not happening. But just because it is classified information does not mean the leaker is always right. That's the standard we've seen applied. Leaker = whistleblower just because the US government is always wrong in some people's minds.

[kentuck]

8. The government may not always be wrong...

but they should always be questioned. The "eternal vigilance" that Jefferson spoke about is more important today than ever.

[treestar]

23. that is true

[cali]

9. well, as far as we know it's not happening. It certainly has happened. Multiple times

Do you actually believe that it couldn't happen again?

[treestar]

24. Of course, that is not what I said

what I said is that it is not happening all the time, just because someone wants it to be.

[cali]

25. no. this is what you said and I posted a perfectly reasonable response to your post.

whether you like it or not.

"And not every leak is automatically right. You came up with an example but of course that is not happening. But just because it is classified information does not mean the leaker is always right. That's the standard we've seen applied. Leaker = whistleblower just because the US government is always wrong in some people's minds."

[hlthe2b]

10. Exposing serious illegalities should be covered under whistleblower protections

but, those protections have been watered down and ignored in recent decades (by both parties in the WH)--to the extent they are meaningless....


The "simple" answer to the question, if there is such a thing, though, is "YES" --sometimes lawbreakers should not be punished.

Hell that applies to more common place situations as well. Extenuating circumstances of the offender and the crime ought to be taken into account. We should not be a "throw away" authoritarian, above all, society

[bemildred]

11. Not when the law makes an ass of itself, as it often does in the USA.

For example, it was the law in Tennessee that pi == 3.0.

A much better question is what should citizens do when the legislature passes stupid or corrupt laws.

[Savannahmann]

12. Good question, but the answer is bigger, and more complex.

Think back to all those old fictional detective books from the past. One of the first things they tried to answer was Why? Why would the bad guy (or girl) do this particular crime? Criminal intent, motive had to be established.

Now, the fictional detective novels will look at motive, but they're fascinated with action, and with technology, and with toughness. Not motive, not the criminal intent.

Juries stopped considering criminal intent as part of the guilt process. We started to ignore it as a people. It became a letter of the law, no matter how asinine the application was. We took sentencing discretion from the Judges, and don't blame Reagan, Tip O'Neal was the speaker of the House. Voting against it was proof you were soft on crime.

We started prosecuting people who never intended, and had no idea their actions were violations of the law, or even their inaction. Women who dated men they thought were decent guys, turned out to be Drug Dealers. Those men fled when the Police got close, and the women were left, despite no evidence that they knew about the drugs, or participated in any way with the dealing of the drugs. Those women were left to answer for the crime, possession of an amount with intent based upon the amount to sell it. Intent was based upon an amount of contraband seized, not the actual behavior, or actions, or the defendant.

We convicted a man of murder despite having no body of a defendant. We convicted him based upon the argument that the victim was missing, and since he could not produce the victim in court, he must have murdered her.

Our juries stopped questioning authority, if the police said on the stand that the sun rose in the west that particular morning, then there were no other questions to ask. The police would never lie is the image, a false image.

We as a people did much of this, and our public servants did the rest. We accepted the argument that ignorance is no excuse, when in reality it's an excellent excuse. If you don't know what the law is, you can't follow it. It is legal to turn right on red in Georgia. My license is valid in all 50 states. I go to New York City, I rent a car, and approach a stoplight, I want to turn right. The light is read, I examine oncoming traffic, it's safe, I execute a legal right turn under the impression that it is legal. Horrified by my mistake, I apologize, and explain to the cop, he/she says ignorance is no excuse. I explain to the judge, he/she says the same thing, ignorance is no excuse.

How do you follow the rules if you don't know what they are? I had no criminal intent, no intent to violate the law, I thought I was doing the legal thing. I didn't know, I couldn't know that the law said that was illegal.

So what can we do? We're not going to get the image of soft on crime out of the publics head. What you can do is when you sit the jury, start out doubting the Prosecution. Make the Prosecution prove that a crime was committed, and that the defendant wanted to commit the crime. Then that only the defendant was the one who could have committed the crime. Prove it, not simply state it. Not by asinine process of elimination abuses. "The victim is dead, someone has to pay for this, and Bob the Defendant was the first person we came across."

Criminal intent is not breaking the letter of the law. Criminal intent is the idea that you were doing something for the wrong reasons. If you leaked information to bring the public awareness of an illegal, or immoral program, then you had no criminal intent. You intended to serve the public, and stand for the conscience of men. The law is supposed to be a guide, applied by a compassionate court system, that examined every bit of the case, and found the truth.

That the crime probably took place isn't enough to convict. That a technical violation of the law took place is not supposed to be enough either. Did the defendant intend to commit the crime? We stopped caring about motive, and we started to pretend that our laws were absolute, like the law of Gravity. They must never be violated.

[kentuck]

13. Excellent comment.

Thanks.

[KharmaTrain]

14. How About A Trial By Jury...

...I guess I'm one of the few left who believes in the concept of "innocent before proven guilty"...thus before any "punishment" is given, a trial by a jury of peers who then determine if there's guilt or not...and then they decide what the punishment should be.

Guess I'm old fashioned, I still trust the Constitution and the American people...

[Javaman]

15. slight of hand and distraction by the state of secrets.

exposing the illegal should never be punished.

[newfie11]

16. No

But in light of the past atrocities our government has committed I doubt any change is possible.

[pipi_k]

18. Like someone else

replied, I think it's a bit more complicated than just a "yes" or "no" answer.

OK, so now Snowden has leaked information on our government's activities. What are people going to do about it, huh? Will his leaking STOP it? I don't think so.

I think Snowden is a craven little pissant coward, quite honestly, and here's why.

If someone does something s/he knows is illegal, that person has to be fully willing to accept the consequences of his/her own act.

You don't run away, looking for asylum in some other country.

You don't sit around and whine about how the cops did this or that (like someone here did a few years ago after getting caught growing pot on his own land). "Boo hoo! Boo hoo! They shouldn't have confiscated my plants/fined me/arrested me/whatever! Boo hoo!"

If you know what you're about to do is illegal...even if it's a stupid law to begin with...you take your lumps.

[Savannahmann]

22. The argument is asinine

I could burn up the servers listing defectors from history, people who both sides of whatever conflict used as propaganda tools. Some we lauded, one whom I mention often is Georgi Markov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

He was a free thinker who defected to the west. He would broadcast on BBC radio telling people in the Soviet States the truth about the Soviet systems. Would his message have carried more weight if he had stayed and been imprisoned, or died during questioning? That the Bulgarians assassinated him in London is just short of factual, we know he was assassinated, and all the evidence points to the Bulgarians. But does his message carry more weight since the traitor was dealt with?

Even in the Bible, Jesus escaped capture until it was the time that had been ordained. HE ESCAPTED CAPTURE. The followers, hid, ran, and spread the word, so they could increase the followers of the Son of God. Despite there being a death sentence for the very belief that Jesus was the messiah. Christians were tortured, and killed, not to prove they were faithful, but to STOP THE MESSAGE. Would it have helped the message if after accepting the word, they marched down and threw themselves to the Lions?

Dissidents were rounded up through history, not to give their message more weight, but to shut them the hell up. Georgi Markov wasn't killed because he was telling lies, but because he was telling the truth. Why didn't we send all those who defected to the United States back to Cuba? After all, they're just trying to escape justice for their crimes right? Wendel Fertig, the self appointed commander of the US Forces in the Philippines. Why didn't he march down and turn himself into the Japanese? Wouldn't that have helped his message? Instead he ran, hid, organized, and fought the Japanese Occupation army in the Philippines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Fertig

Why don't we send the defectors back to North Korea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_defectors

Why don't we send the people who are escaping justice back to Cuba? Why, why, why?

You can't have it both ways. You can't cheer someone who tells the truth about the immoral actions of another nation lauded as heroes, while decrying the escape of someone who exposes the immoral actions of our own country.

[pipi_k]

26. Not sure

If you were agreeing with me or disagreeing...however, I do agree with your last paragraph.

People can't have it both ways.

What I find repugnant is the fact that some people do things they know are illegal, yet, knowing there are consequences for what they're going to do, try to avoid those consequences, or whine about having to deal with the consequences.

[idwiyo]

27. Yours is one of the most asinine posts I have seen so far in regards to 'Ye shall follow the law'

You wrote (bolding is mine to highlight the relevant part):

If someone does something s/he knows is illegal, that person has to be fully willing to accept the consequences of his/her own act.

You don't sit around and whine about how the cops did this or that (like someone here did a few years ago after getting caught growing pot on his own land). "Boo hoo! Boo hoo! They shouldn't have confiscated my plants/fined me/arrested me/whatever! Boo hoo!"

If you know what you're about to do is illegal...even if it's a stupid law to begin with...you take your lumps.

Example case: Abortion is illegal in country X under any circumstances. Person who had abortion will be
prosecuted and put in jail.

Mary lives in country X. Mary had an abortion performed by a sympathetic DR.

Following your logic,
- Mary should willingly submit herself to police, confess her crime, tell them who the doctor was, and serve her time in jail.
- Dr should willingly submit themselves to police, confess their crime(s), tell them who they performed abortions for and serve time in jail.

[geek tragedy]

19. Prosecutors have discretion on which cases to bring.

In your hypothetical, clearly refraining from prosecution would be the wise move.

[idwiyo]

20. Reporting wrongdoing is not a crime even if wrongdoing is legal. There are some things that no law

can make right. Ever.

BTW, wistleblower doesn't even have to be right. As long as they believe they are exposing wrongdoing they are a wistleblower.

[MineralMan]

21. No. But some must be prosecuted.

In my old California county, where I lived for 35 years, the DA in that county decided, in the 1970s that he would no longer prosecute people for simple possession of marijuana. It was still illegal, and they did prosecute people who were selling it, but prosecutions ended for simple possession.

Laws are often prosecuted selectively. However illegal acts that get lots of publicity are usually not skipped for prosecution. There's a lot of pressure on prosecutors to take such cases to court. That applies to local jurisdictions and to national ones, as well

On the other hand, no prosecutions of people like Bush and Cheney were done. The reason for that was precedent. Nobody wanted to set a precedent of prosecuting Presidents and the like for what many considered to be crimes. And so, no prosecutions were mounted, and won't be.