[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
Created:Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1362
Total number of notes:61362

309.0. "Wrongdoing, confession, and justice" by JURAN::VALENZA (Glasnote.) Wed Sep 11 1991 23:01

    I would like to propose an ethical thought experiment, based on a story
    that appears in "The Brothers Karamazov".

    There is a man who, in a jealous rage, killed his unrequited lover
    fourteen years ago.  A servant, who had motive and opportunity, was
    falsely accused, but he took ill and died before the trial.  No one
    suspected the real killer, and since the falsely accused servant died
    anyway, no one was false punished.  

    The man is a pillar of his community now, and has a wife and children. 
    There is no possibility of him being found out, and what is past cannot
    now be undone.  Yet this murder weighs on his conscience.  Something
    nags at him, tells him to confess the crime.  But for him to do so
    would ruin the lives of his wife and children; to keep the secret would
    harm no one.  

    The idea of this thought experiment is not to conceive of some
    loophole.  Let us accept the intent of the premises that Dostoyevsky
    constructed here.  The point was that the killer had nothing to fear
    from society, no one had been falsely punished, no one would be the
    wiser if he did not confess, and a confession would only hurt other
    innocent people (namely his wife, "who may die of grief", and his
    children, "who will be a convict's children--and forever!").  I say
    this because it might be easy to come up with some loophole in the
    thought experiment, and I think that is defeating the purpose.  I want
    to emphasize the premise of the experiment, that from a purely worldly
    and utilitarian point of view, a confession would accomplish nothing. 
    Anyway, in this scenario, despite all of these things, he felt the urge
    to confess his crime.  This was a painful decision for him, but Father
    Zossima urged him to overcome his apprehension and confess anyway.

    Ultimately, he did confess, and even provided evidence that he still
    had from the scene of the crime; and everyone took him to be mad.  No
    one accepted his confession.  But the load was lifted from his heart;
    it was not his responsibility that they did not believe him.  The
    police investigated his claim and then dismissed the matter.  His
    children and wife were spared the ordeal of his being a convicted
    murderer.

    Of course, in real life, things don't always turn out so well.  Some
    might argue that this wasn't really a happy ending anyway, and that
    justice would only have been served by his having been tried and
    convicted (regardless of how this affected his family).  So this
    thought experiment raises a lot of interesting questions for me. 
    First, should he have confessed?  Second, was justice served by his
    punishment, or was his effort at confessing the truth enough?  Third,
    would his having been punished have made any difference in this
    scenario?

    For what it's worth, my first impulse is to believe that he did the
    right thing by publicly confessing his wrongdoing, even though the
    potential negative consequences for his wife and children make this
    decision more difficult.  I guess I don't generally view morality in
    purely utilitarian terms.   I believe this not because of a fear of God
    as such, but because I feel in my heart that honesty is a component of
    justice, that part of healing and reconciliation with others and with
    God requires justice and honesty, that and that doing the right thing
    is its own reward.  But did he do the right thing?  Is it always right
    to put one's cards on the table, or are there times when it is more
    harmful and undesirable to do so?  Are there times when it is better to
    just let sleeping dogs lie?  
    
    Since we are all imperfect and capable of wrongdoing, we are all faced
    with the questions of healing and reconciliation.   That, to me, is th
    essence of religion.  To me, these are not trivial questions.
    
        -- Mike
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
309.1DECWIN::MESSENGERBob MessengerWed Sep 11 1991 23:4719
Re: .309 Mike

That's some book you're reading there, Mike!

It's a thought provoking question, and I hate to give an off-hand answer to it,
but... here's my off-hand gut feeling.

My advice to the murderer would be: "Don't be a fool!  Keep it to yourself.
You only live one life and you might as well enjoy it."

From society's standpoint, if society learns of the crime then it has a duty to
punish the murderer, as a deterrent to others.  If it doesn't learn of the
crime then it has lost nothing - there's no need for a deterrent.

On the other hand, as a member of society I'm weakening the deterrent value of
the moral imperative against murder by advising the murder to keep quiet, so
please ignore the advice I gave earlier. ;^)

				-- Bob
309.2Our Eyes Are Limited In Seeing All There IsPCCAD1::RICHARDJBluegrass,Music Aged To PerfekchunThu Sep 12 1991 10:2712
    Well, I believe the truth will set you free and justice will be
    served, perhaps not in this life, but in the next. Beyond that, 
    the book apparently doesn't tell, but the falsely accused murder's 
    family probably had to live with shame, humiliation and other
    persecutions. After the confession, there would be some relief on their 
    part, that their loved one was innocent and justice would be served to
    some degree for them.

    Peace
    Jim
309.3JURAN::VALENZAGlasnote.Thu Sep 12 1991 11:4913
    Jim, I agree with you, but what if the falsely accused murderer had no
    family?  I guess I was anticipating the point you raise here when I
    suggested that there were, no doubt, loopholes in this thought
    experiment.  In real life situations someone would no doubt benefit
    from actually confessing the crime; that is the problem with
    hypothetical situations like these, which are often manipulated  to
    produce a desired response.  The fact that victims are helped is an
    important reason for bringing the truth out into the open.  I think
    that the question Dostoyevsky was trying to raise here was whether or
    not this is the sole reason for confessing the truth, or if God's
    justice demands it even if no one would benefit from it.

    -- Mike
309.4There's no answers, wrong or right, it's just life!SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEFri Sep 13 1991 20:0260
    RE: Basenote
    
    I love this sort of stuff....let me respond to that!
    
    First, Moreso than "GOD", we are dealing with "Forces".  
    
    The Natural Order:
    
    	1)The body submits to the Mind.
    	2)The Mind submits to the Forces.
    	3)The Forces were established by God.
    
    So, we may or may not believe in God, a Supreme Creator of Forces, but
    NO man can deny the reality and presences of the Forces.  As it is
    written, "God is not mocked, a man shall reap what he sows."
    
    Now, in general whatever happens, what a man "reaps" is in direct
    proportion to what he sows, without exception...this is my belief, as I
    have understood it revealed by the Word of God.
    
    So, let's examine the factors here in this scenario.
    
    First, this "murderer", who did he murder and why, "in a jealous rage,
    (he) killed his unrequited lover".
    
    a)	First, I'm a little confused, "unrequited" suggests, "he loved
    someone who didn't love him back", but "lover" suggests "they were"
    lovers.  But, returned love or not, this man killed out of "jealousy". 
    An emotion which God, the Forces, understand and sympathize with. 
    As it is written "I am a JEALOUS God", and the book of Proverbs
    contains a proverb about "rage of a jealous man".  
    
    b)	The servent, "who had motive, but died before the trial", I would
    suggest it was the "forces" which put him in a position for such a
    fate...and it was HIS just desert for something he had been getting
    away with on the sly!
    
    c)	Most importantly, should this "murderer" have stood up and
    confessed from the very start?!?  He should have, but because it was
    "jealousy" which motivated the murder, somehow it makes one feel half
    way justified...so yes and no.
    
    d)	Then should he have ever opened his mouth?  Well again, the
    "forces" at play in his soul motivated him to confess, so yes he should
    have.
    
    e)	The issue becomes a question of "should we obey the natural forces 
    within us".  Well, that's why it was important for me to know whether
    his love was "unrequited" or were they "lovers"...but either way it
    doesn't matter, the man was jealous, and he killed.  What about the
    object of his love, should she have presented reason of jealousy to the
    face of man so much in love with her?  Was she obeying her inner forces
    or defying them?  If she was defying them and was killed...that's what
    happens!  If she was obeying them and was killed, perhaps that was her
    fate!  
    
    One thing I do know, however, is this, "Depending upon the
    circumstances of your death, determines who comes to your funeral!"
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth
309.5Do the right thingSDSVAX::SWEENEYSOAPBOX: more thought, more talkFri Sep 13 1991 21:254
    The man was unjustly killed.  It was a murder.
    
    The killer should confess to the police and accept the punishment
    of the state.  The killer should repent and seek God's forgiveness.
309.6Justice seldom manifests on this planet IMOKARHU::TURNERMon Sep 16 1991 10:052
    Should you trust the state to be fair and just? It often proves itself
    otherwise.
309.7The police aren't the Angels of the Guard at Heavens Way!SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEMon Sep 16 1991 19:4925
    RE: 5
    
    Sweeney, confessing to the police and confessing to God and repentance
    are not necessarily the same thing.
    
    I believe there's a scripture that says, "[A Christian] shouldn't take
    issues to the court, but should try to resolve things out of court, for
    if he goes to court he will be punished to the fullest extent of the
    law" (this is paraphase).  If you read between the lines, you'll see
    several implications as to whether one is considered "unrighteous" in
    God's sight for not turning ones self in to the "police".
    
    I agree we #6 as well.
    
    It becomes a matter of conscience, and the FORCE directing our lives in
    righteousness.  What should Moses have done when he killed the
    Egyptian?  Should he too have turned himself in to the Egyptian guard?
    
    Understand that I speak from the Christian Perspective.  Which is not
    to say that under any immediate threat of life I wouldn't seek the
    protection of the police...but by no means do I confuse the police with
    Christianity.  I don't think Angels who guard heaven, skim drug money,
    take credit cards from old folks, etc, etc. etc....no not one of them!
    
    Playtoe
309.8back to the BibleSDSVAX::SWEENEYSOAPBOX: more thought, more talkTue Sep 17 1991 23:4225
    "Pat" will do as a form of address, if that's your style.

    The passage that applies here 1 Co 6:1 [NIV] "If any of you have a
    dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for adjustment
    instead of before the saints?  Do you not know that the saints will
    judge the world?"         

    The Corinthians were a particulary unholy people, chapt. 5 condemns
    their sexual immorality, in this case consensual incest, chapt. 7
    outlines the nature of Christian marriage.

    Some other passages "settle matters quickly with your adversary..." and
    "And if someone wants to sue you..." Mt 5:25, 40 don't apply to murder.

    The United States is a nation of laws.  In my opinion a person who
    has murdered and confesses to murder in the United States is not in the
    position of a person witnessing to Jesus Christ in Corinth.  I take the
    passage above to refer to God's judgment and not an earthly judgment.

    However if you believe that the United States isn't a nation of laws
    then you're free to change it.

    If the scenario was changed to a case of self-defense where there were
    no witnesses, then evasion of the police would match my sense of
    practicality and morality.
309.9SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEMon Sep 23 1991 20:0379
    RE: 8
    
    Pat
    
    Two statements that I take issue with:
    
    1     "The Corinthians were a particulary unholy people,"
    
    "Unholy", come on that's a bit harsh and unbecoming the "Christian"
    family/brotherhood...thou shalt not judge!  You FAIL to a point with me
    about the righteousness of going to THIS nation's courts, by putting
    down another people.  Comparisons like this are not warranted or
    necessary.  Ok so "sexual morality" may have been their hangup. 
    "Murder" is truly America's.  I just heard last night the following
    facts about "hand gun" murders in the world in 1989; 5 in Canada, 8 in
    Great Britain, 46 in Japan, and 8,3?? in America.  My friend theirs
    more overall "corruption" in America than in any other country on
    earth.
    
>    The United States is a nation of laws.  
    
    So what's your point?  What does this mean!?!  
    
>    Some other passages "settle matters quickly with your adversary..." and
>    "And if someone wants to sue you..." Mt 5:25, 40 don't apply to murder.
    
    This is the passage to which I was referring.  I believe it is has a
    greater meaning than in regards to property or money matters.  
    
    Another thing is this, one must "HATE the world and the things of the
    world", worldly governments shall pass, but the government of God shall
    never pass.  If your love for this country and this nation exceed your
    love of God, then you are not ready for Christ and the Kingdom.  In
    other words, if this country/nation has committed a crime, and just
    because it is "OUR" nation, we condone and justify that act, contrary
    to the commandments of God, we are not of God...where's the priority?
    
>    However if you believe that the United States isn't a nation of laws
>    then you're free to change it.
    
    United States is a lot of things, and it has many laws...but what do
    you mean by the above I haven't the slighest notion.  Are you saying
    that this "nation of laws" is righteous?  Are you saying that those who
    administer those laws are righteous?  Are you saying that those who
    enforce those laws are righteous?  What is the meaning of this, as you
    seem to henge a great deal of your reply on the interpretation of this
    phrase?
    
>    If the scenario was changed to a case of self-defense where there were
>    no witnesses, then evasion of the police would match my sense of
>    practicality and morality.
    
    "Evasion" is not part of the first scenario.  The man was never
    suspected.  We was never asked, and he never offered up the
    information.  Had he maneuvered and evaded the police, that would make
    it a whole new story...one which does not match my "sense of
    practicality and morality".  You see, Moses, didn't "lie" or "evade"
    the Egyptian guard, in his rage at the Egyptian going against his
    brother, a Hebrew, he slew the Egyptian.  The never took him to trial
    on it, and he never evaded it, but he didn't offer it up either.  So
    there seems to be some sort of righteousness in Moses act.  Moses put
    his life on the line for his friend..."There is no greater love..." you
    know the verse.
    
    The question is "Is being a friend with YOURSELF, a valid friendship". 
    I laid down my life, by taking another's life (my enemy) to save ME". 
    And "could I live with myself if I let this man walk away with my
    beloved"?  Do you think that sleeping with another man's wife, who
    loves her dearly, is like trying to kill him?  Have you ever known a
    may to commit suicide at the loss of his beloved?  How would you feel
    if you caught a man with your beloved?  Of course, every man does not
    experience the same level and depth of love.  However, the deeper the
    love one would think the closer and more sacred it is in the sight of
    God, moreso than in man's eyes.  But then again, that's the whole
    essence of living in the "Spirit of the Law", as opposed to "Living by
    the Letter of the Law".
    
    Playtoe