Quote:
Originally Posted by knight_shadow
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way (or maybe I watch too many episodes of Law and Order  ), but I would think a lawyer would have the opposite view.
Would (general) you advise an officer to arrest someone you "know" committed a crime without first making sure the allegations had merit? |
I'm a little confused by this. How can you "know" that someone has committed a crime and at the same time not know whether there is any merit to allegations of criminal activity? Or do you mean "know" as in "suspect," or "heard"?
In any event, I'd give two answers: First, yes, I actually thought about what I said coming from a lawyer, but the statement was that morals do not supercded
protocol, not that morals do not supercede
the law. (Though isn't the whole concept of civil disobedience predicated on the idea that morals do supersede the law if the law is itself immoral or compels an immoral result?)
Second, I don't think I see a conflict for your hypothetical officer. If he "knows" (as in strongly suspects) a crime has been committed, then there is a moral
and legal obligation to pursue the matter further to determine whether a crime was in fact committed or not.
Threaded Mode
