Guilt by Association - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 04-03-2006, 12:30 PM

If you have knowledge that a crime is going to happen, is happening, or has happened and you do nothing to prevent it or bring those responsible to justice are you a) morally responsible for the crime and b) legally responsible for the crime. If the answer to either of these questions is yes then at what point of action are you no longer responsible both legally and morally.

Here are some examples:

Person A witnesses a murder and tells no one.
Person A hears a murder is going to happen and tells no one.
Person A see's a friend smoking pot and tells no one
Person A knows his friend is going to smoke pot and tells no one.

flstf · 04-03-2006, 02:28 PM

In the first two examples I would feel morally and legally responsible.

In the last two examples I would feel legally but not morally responsible and would not tell anyone.

Since there are stupid laws on the books, I choose which ones to be concerned with.

ScottKuma · 04-03-2006, 02:29 PM

I believe that in any of the above cases, person A could be charged as an accessory.

As marijuana possession is usually a misdemeanor, the DA isn't likely to charge. Murder, however, is a different story. I'd be amazed if they didn't charge you....if they found out.

nezmot · 04-03-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

are you a) morally responsible for the crime and b) legally responsible for the crime?

No, you are neither morally, nor legally responsible for the actions of others.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-03-2006, 03:06 PM

You could gague the moral ones for yourself. On the questions of murder I would feel morally guilty in the cases, but I don't think there carries any legal responsibility. You have to facilitate the crime in someway to be legally responsible, if you went out of your way in not testifying or lying in the chance of investigation you might carry some legally responsibility, but nothing near the level of murder.

As for the questions of pot, I feel no guilt morally or legally. Personally speaking I have no problems with people smoking pot, legally the cases above don't carry with them any legal guilt.

Morality is subjective, so on that question you would could really at any point absolve yourself of guilt depending on your compass.

Legally speaking, if you act in such a way that is illegal, you are responsible until absolved of crimes or serving of punishment; however guilt in the case of murder or anything drug related would require some active form of participation, apathy does not equate to any legal standard of guilt.

The_Jazz · 04-03-2006, 06:03 PM

As Mojo said, morality is subjective and, IMO, depends on time and place as well as circumstances. Obviously the murder scenarios would leave a greater sense of guilt than the pot smoking, but the murder might be of a well-known pedophile bent on raping again. Who's in the right there?

The law doesn't equivocate on the legal ramifications. You are responsible if the law says so. If you don't like it, lobby to have the law changed. It is black and white while the morality has a much more grey in it.

Rekna · 04-04-2006, 05:12 AM

It seems most think yes you are guilty. Since morality is subjective let's drop that one and just look at legally. If a person witnesses the mob kill someone and says nothing out of fear are they guilty? Is it the duty of every person to make sure laws are enforced? If a person is speeding down the road is every person who does not attempt to write down that persons licence plate number and call them in also guilty of speeding?

ubertuber · 04-04-2006, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It seems most think yes you are guilty. Since morality is subjective let's drop that one and just look at legally. If a person witnesses the mob kill someone and says nothing out of fear are they guilty? Is it the duty of every person to make sure laws are enforced? If a person is speeding down the road is every person who does not attempt to write down that persons licence plate number and call them in also guilty of speeding?

Clearly they're not guilty of speeding.

I'm just curious (because any answer to this is fine) - is this about the ambiguity of our legal system regarding accessory/accomplice to crime, or are you going to tie this into a political issue?

I don't want my response to screw your point up.

Rekna · 04-04-2006, 06:56 AM

I'm just wondering what everyone is feeling about this because right now I feel a precedence on this very issue is about to be set in court. Right now prosecutors are trying to get the death penalty for Moussaoui. Their case is that he could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by telling federal agents what he knew therefore he is guilty of the 9/11 attacks. This seems like a dangerous precedence. Yes he deserves to go to jail for life but the death penalty? He didn’t plan the attacks and I doubt he was even supposed to be involved in them at all. But if he had told them his Al Queda connections they may have been able to untangle the spider web…… It seems like a stretch for a death penalty to me.

Ustwo · 04-04-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm just wondering what everyone is feeling about this because right now I feel a precedence on this very issue is about to be set in court. Right now prosecutors are trying to get the death penalty for Moussaoui. Their case is that he could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by telling federal agents what he knew therefore he is guilty of the 9/11 attacks. This seems like a dangerous precedence. Yes he deserves to go to jail for life but the death penalty? He didn’t plan the attacks and I doubt he was even supposed to be involved in them at all. But if he had told them his Al Queda connections they may have been able to untangle the spider web…… It seems like a stretch for a death penalty to me.

An enemy comando operating in civilian clothing was automaticly shot in wartime for being a spy.

This isn't a civilian level crime and punishment issue. Treating it as such is a mistake, and a common one of the left. Its a war, you treat it as a war.

The only mistake is that he is not in front of a military court.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-04-2006, 07:18 AM

Yeah Moussaui is dicked for more than have being able to prevent 9/11. He was an accomplice in the plot, he facilitated the crime, and he is also guilty of conspiracy. You couple that with the point that Ustwo made, where he is lucky the FBI got him and Rummy didn't want him at Gitmo; he knowingly and willingly participated in something, he had an active role even though he wasn't on one of the planes. This goes beyond keeping silent.

flstf · 04-04-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It seems most think yes you are guilty. Since morality is subjective let's drop that one and just look at legally. If a person witnesses the mob kill someone and says nothing out of fear are they guilty? Is it the duty of every person to make sure laws are enforced? If a person is speeding down the road is every person who does not attempt to write down that persons licence plate number and call them in also guilty of speeding?

I take it that this thread will eventually discuss the "No Snitching" or "Stop Snitching" campaign. There are probably quite a few laws that we witness being broken that many of us would not tell the police about.

Quote:

No Snitching
'No Snitching' Movement Has Roots in Drug War
March 30, 2006
A grassroots campaign to discourage crime witnesses from talking to police is partially a response to the war on drugs, USA Today reported March 29.

T-shirts and hats with the message "Stop Snitching" have proliferated on the streets of cities like Pittsburgh, Boston, Baltimore, and New York. The trend has frustrated police and prosecutors, who say the intent is to intimidate witnesses.

The no-snitching message also has been delivered via rap songs and by the actions of celebrities; 50 witnesses to the murder of a bodyguard for rapper Busta Rhymes have refused to cooperate with police, including Rhymes himself. The murders of rappers Tupac Shakur, Notorious B.I.G., and Run DMC's Jam Master Jay have all gone unsolved for similar reasons.

The silence in such cases mystifies New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. "Your employee is murdered in front of you ... you'd think he might want to talk to the police," he said of the Rhymes case.

But David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said, "There's such animosity toward the police in some urban communities that even people who aren't afraid, and who hate crime, still feel cooperating is something good people don't do. That's the Busta Rhymes story. He has nothing to fear. He just doesn't want to talk. His reputation would take a dive if he did."

The no-snitching campaign is partly a response to the proliferation of informers, which in turn is a result of the war on drugs. Police routinely turn minor drug offenders into informers to try to catch bigger dealers: about one in three drug prosecutions involves the use of informants, who typically get reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation. "If a dealer needs to make a deal, he'll tell on his mother," said Pittsburgh Police Department Commander Maurita Bryan. "It may not be right, but it's all we have."

Harvey Silverglate, a Boston defense lawyer, says the rewards for informers encourages them "not only to sing, but to compose."

In some minority neighborhoods, where up to half of young men have a police record, an estimated one in twelve men has worked as an informer, creating intense social pressure on communities and families. Some see the no-snitching campaign as a backlash against people who commit crimes but don't go to prison because they have ratted on someone else.

The_Jazz · 04-04-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

An enemy comando operating in civilian clothing was automaticly shot in wartime for being a spy.

This isn't a civilian level crime and punishment issue. Treating it as such is a mistake, and a common one of the left. Its a war, you treat it as a war.

The only mistake is that he is not in front of a military court.

An enemy commando operating in civilian clothing would be shot by the army, not federal pentatentary system, and only if he targeted civilians or civil installations. Being caught as a spy isn't even necessarily a death penalty case. It depends on the circumstances, and it's certainly no absolute.

There is no declared war. Congress has not given the President any wartime powers. I agree that Moussaoui should be before a military court, but he's not so it's a moot point. There's too much to lose for the government using a military tribunal. A jury trial plays better to the rest of the world.

The really interesting thing here is that Moussaoui has been disavowed by most of the Al Qaida members in custody. They thought he as dedicated but a nutjob. None of the major players put Moussaoui as a part of the 9/11 plot - he may or may not have been a part of a second wave that was supposed to hit a few months later.

This guy wants to be a martyr more than anything else. He wants the death penalty because he thinks/knows that his death will be a big boost to his cause. If he gets death, he gets exactly what he wants. Letting him rot in prison is much more effective for everyone, I think. His claim that he was supposed to pilot a 5th plane with Richard Reid is laughable at best and hasn't been backed up with any intelligence, which was incredibly apparent by the prosecution's reaction to that claim. The whole trial is starting to stink like a show trial.

Rekna · 04-04-2006, 10:48 AM

I agree that Moussaoui's testemony against himself isn't very credibile. He has motive to lie, he wants to be a martyr and his claims seemed increadibly outragous. I question how much he really knew about 9/11 in the first place.

The_Jazz · 04-04-2006, 10:59 AM

At this point, I think that he would cop to being the real kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby if he thought it would get him the death penalty.

Rekna · 04-04-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

An enemy comando operating in civilian clothing was automaticly shot in wartime for being a spy.

This isn't a civilian level crime and punishment issue. Treating it as such is a mistake, and a common one of the left. Its a war, you treat it as a war.

The only mistake is that he is not in front of a military court.

Ustwo can you please remind me who we are at war at with now and who we were at war with in 2000 when this guy was arrested.

Thanks

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-04-2006, 09:10 PM

Congress gave war time powers surrounding the incidents of Iraq and Afghanistan. And if it's Moussaoui you are talking about, he was arrested in August 2001: The FBI knew he was up to something and as such they brought him in on immigration charges, then later amended said charges to conspiracy and such once they were able to lay everything down.

As far as wartime powers concerning a non-military combatant or a spy, well there is no "non-war time" limitation in their handling, the whole "who were at wat with pre 9-11" has little standing in this argument.

Rekna · 04-05-2006, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

As far as wartime powers concerning a non-military combatant or a spy, well there is no "non-war time" limitation in their handling, the whole "who were at wat with pre 9-11" has little standing in this argument.

Can you please back this statement up with refrences?

Rekna · 04-05-2006, 05:19 AM

Wikipedia might be wrong but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States
we have never formally declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan.

Ustwo · 04-05-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Wikipedia might be wrong but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States
we have never formally declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan.

And this would matter why?

There is no such thing as an illegal war, unless of course you lose.

Redlemon · 04-05-2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I take it that this thread will eventually discuss the "No Snitching" or "Stop Snitching" campaign.

Or,

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-05-2006, 07:03 AM

Congress still authorized the use of force for both conflicts, as a sovereign state that makes them nice and legal.

As far as references for my point about war time powers or peace time powers... Laws always stand on the books, unless of course they are repealed or found unconstitutional. After an incident congress may tack on more laws, say like 9-11 leading to the patriot act, but that then becomes law and only has bearing from that point forward. Laws cannot work retroactively, that is what is called ex post facto, and it is illegal.

As far as spies go, there is always going to be standing law on the books for their handling as you don't need to be in war time to deal with them. An exapmle of standing law in designation of combatants in war time or not could be the ratification of the Hague treaty; if congress ratified the treaty then it is codified law and is wholely applicable at any point.

Or perhaps the best example was the Rosenbergs, the couple put to death after it was revealed that Mr. Rosenberg aided the communists with American military secrets, his wife was charged and convicted with him. They were put to death as spies,the US was not in any declared conflict, we might've been in Korea, but I don't think we declared war for that one.

Espionage is illegal at all times, although it might be held that is times of conflict it's penalty increases. Much like deserting the Army, severe in peace time, in time of war they can shoot your ass. Treason on the other hand is always standing, it is the only criminal law that can be found addressed in the constitution.

Hope that helps

Jinn · 04-05-2006, 08:46 AM

The interesting twist is that oftentimes accessory/accomplish/conspirator are civil crimes, and so there's no "burden of proof" only "preponderance of the evidence." I was charged with conspiracy against the US myself, and I was told by the DA that it'd be better to take the plea bargain than attempt to show my innocence in court. Why? Because I'd have to prove that I WASN'T aware of anything going on.

Think about that -- how do you PROVE that you actually DIDN't know anything? My opinion is that conspiracy should not be a crime, unless you actively participated. Proving you weren't aware of the crime is a nigh impossible thing, if the prosecutors can link you in time and place at all. It's a bastardization of "innocent until proven guilty" -- you're literally treated as if you were aware of the crime unless you can prove you were not -- "guilty until proven innocent" comes to mind.

04-03-2006, 12:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Guilt by Association If you have knowledge that a crime is going to happen, is happening, or has happened and you do nothing to prevent it or bring those responsible to justice are you a) morally responsible for the crime and b) legally responsible for the crime. If the answer to either of these questions is yes then at what point of action are you no longer responsible both legally and morally. Here are some examples: Person A witnesses a murder and tells no one. Person A hears a murder is going to happen and tells no one. Person A see's a friend smoking pot and tells no one Person A knows his friend is going to smoke pot and tells no one.

04-03-2006, 02:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	I believe that in any of the above cases, person A could be charged as an accessory. As marijuana possession is usually a misdemeanor, the DA isn't likely to charge. Murder, however, is a different story. I'd be amazed if they didn't charge you....if they found out. __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me

04-03-2006, 03:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	You could gague the moral ones for yourself. On the questions of murder I would feel morally guilty in the cases, but I don't think there carries any legal responsibility. You have to facilitate the crime in someway to be legally responsible, if you went out of your way in not testifying or lying in the chance of investigation you might carry some legally responsibility, but nothing near the level of murder. As for the questions of pot, I feel no guilt morally or legally. Personally speaking I have no problems with people smoking pot, legally the cases above don't carry with them any legal guilt. Morality is subjective, so on that question you would could really at any point absolve yourself of guilt depending on your compass. Legally speaking, if you act in such a way that is illegal, you are responsible until absolved of crimes or serving of punishment; however guilt in the case of murder or anything drug related would require some active form of participation, apathy does not equate to any legal standard of guilt. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-03-2006, 06:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	As Mojo said, morality is subjective and, IMO, depends on time and place as well as circumstances. Obviously the murder scenarios would leave a greater sense of guilt than the pot smoking, but the murder might be of a well-known pedophile bent on raping again. Who's in the right there? The law doesn't equivocate on the legal ramifications. You are responsible if the law says so. If you don't like it, lobby to have the law changed. It is black and white while the morality has a much more grey in it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-04-2006, 07:18 AM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yeah Moussaui is dicked for more than have being able to prevent 9/11. He was an accomplice in the plot, he facilitated the crime, and he is also guilty of conspiracy. You couple that with the point that Ustwo made, where he is lucky the FBI got him and Rummy didn't want him at Gitmo; he knowingly and willingly participated in something, he had an active role even though he wasn't on one of the planes. This goes beyond keeping silent. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-03-2006, 02:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	In the first two examples I would feel morally and legally responsible. In the last two examples I would feel legally but not morally responsible and would not tell anyone. Since there are stupid laws on the books, I choose which ones to be concerned with.

04-04-2006, 05:12 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It seems most think yes you are guilty. Since morality is subjective let's drop that one and just look at legally. If a person witnesses the mob kill someone and says nothing out of fear are they guilty? Is it the duty of every person to make sure laws are enforced? If a person is speeding down the road is every person who does not attempt to write down that persons licence plate number and call them in also guilty of speeding?

04-04-2006, 06:56 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm just wondering what everyone is feeling about this because right now I feel a precedence on this very issue is about to be set in court. Right now prosecutors are trying to get the death penalty for Moussaoui. Their case is that he could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by telling federal agents what he knew therefore he is guilty of the 9/11 attacks. This seems like a dangerous precedence. Yes he deserves to go to jail for life but the death penalty? He didn’t plan the attacks and I doubt he was even supposed to be involved in them at all. But if he had told them his Al Queda connections they may have been able to untangle the spider web…… It seems like a stretch for a death penalty to me.

04-04-2006, 10:48 AM	#14 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I agree that Moussaoui's testemony against himself isn't very credibile. He has motive to lie, he wants to be a martyr and his claims seemed increadibly outragous. I question how much he really knew about 9/11 in the first place.

04-04-2006, 10:59 AM	#15 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	At this point, I think that he would cop to being the real kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby if he thought it would get him the death penalty. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-04-2006, 09:10 PM	#17 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Congress gave war time powers surrounding the incidents of Iraq and Afghanistan. And if it's Moussaoui you are talking about, he was arrested in August 2001: The FBI knew he was up to something and as such they brought him in on immigration charges, then later amended said charges to conspiracy and such once they were able to lay everything down. As far as wartime powers concerning a non-military combatant or a spy, well there is no "non-war time" limitation in their handling, the whole "who were at wat with pre 9-11" has little standing in this argument. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-05-2006, 05:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Wikipedia might be wrong but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States we have never formally declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan.

04-05-2006, 07:03 AM	#22 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Congress still authorized the use of force for both conflicts, as a sovereign state that makes them nice and legal. As far as references for my point about war time powers or peace time powers... Laws always stand on the books, unless of course they are repealed or found unconstitutional. After an incident congress may tack on more laws, say like 9-11 leading to the patriot act, but that then becomes law and only has bearing from that point forward. Laws cannot work retroactively, that is what is called ex post facto, and it is illegal. As far as spies go, there is always going to be standing law on the books for their handling as you don't need to be in war time to deal with them. An exapmle of standing law in designation of combatants in war time or not could be the ratification of the Hague treaty; if congress ratified the treaty then it is codified law and is wholely applicable at any point. Or perhaps the best example was the Rosenbergs, the couple put to death after it was revealed that Mr. Rosenberg aided the communists with American military secrets, his wife was charged and convicted with him. They were put to death as spies,the US was not in any declared conflict, we might've been in Korea, but I don't think we declared war for that one. Espionage is illegal at all times, although it might be held that is times of conflict it's penalty increases. Much like deserting the Army, severe in peace time, in time of war they can shoot your ass. Treason on the other hand is always standing, it is the only criminal law that can be found addressed in the constitution. Hope that helps __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-05-2006, 08:46 AM	#23 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	The interesting twist is that oftentimes accessory/accomplish/conspirator are civil crimes, and so there's no "burden of proof" only "preponderance of the evidence." I was charged with conspiracy against the US myself, and I was told by the DA that it'd be better to take the plea bargain than attempt to show my innocence in court. Why? Because I'd have to prove that I WASN'T aware of anything going on. Think about that -- how do you PROVE that you actually DIDN't know anything? My opinion is that conspiracy should not be a crime, unless you actively participated. Proving you weren't aware of the crime is a nigh impossible thing, if the prosecutors can link you in time and place at all. It's a bastardization of "innocent until proven guilty" -- you're literally treated as if you were aware of the crime unless you can prove you were not -- "guilty until proven innocent" comes to mind. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel