Modern Ethics- what to do?

[JamesSavik]

You hear that a long time friend is a child molester.

 

You have no first-hand knowledge of it.

 

You don't entirely trust the source of the rumor or their motives.

 

You DO NOT have 20/20 hindsight. The game is not chess. You do not see all of the pieces on the board.

 

 

"Saying something" could get you sued and destroy a valued relationship.

 

"Saying something" could mean that your long-time friend may face a media circus, a long trial and even if they are found not guilty irrevocable damage to their reputation.

 

It could mean that they spend the rest of their life in prison or get murdered inside. If they get out they are branded a sex offender.

 

 

Giving him the benefit of a doubt until you have more information also has consequences.

 

Some states have mandatory child abuse reporting laws.

 

Some institutions like boards of education and universities have policies.

 

You could be fired in disgrace even if you follow the rules simply because you didn't "look good".

 

 

So.. what do you do? It's supposed to be an easy answer until you look at the question very carefully.

[NaperVic]

You have no first-hand knowledge of it.

 

You don't entirely trust the source of the rumor or their motives.

 

If I were in a position of responsibility, I would start observing/monitoring the person more closely. And I'd certainly be on the lookout for the person interacting with children particularly if he was doing so in facilities under my control(like a locker room).

[Zombie]

I don't know if this is a real life situation or just an academic exercise, but I'll assume it's real.

 

As Domaholic intimates we don't know what your position is.  It could be anything, but I'll suppose two possibilities::

 

1. You and your friend (call him "John") and the unreliable source (call him "Steve") all  work for the same employer in positions of responsibility towards minors.

- Check your employer's policy and see what it says about acting on rumours.

- Meet with Steve and insist he gives full information otherwise you will report him - you cannot just let this be

- If he refuses - report him to your employer for spreading rumours about a colleague and refusing to give details when challenged

- If he admits it was malicious - report him for malicious action

- If he provides any supporting information refer to your employer's policy and decide on materiality whether it is reportable under the terms of the policy, otherwise do as Domoholic suggests.

 

2. John does not work with minors - your only relationship is friendship

- You could do nothing.  But what sort of "friend" would sit back and do nothing while someone else spreads these rumours.  If you are such a good friend don't you owe it him to tell him?  For all you know "Steve" is spreading this rumour all over the place.  How would you feel if you were in "John's" shoes and dreadful rumours were being circulated about you of which you were completely unaware until everyone around you knew except you?

- So, at the very least, you should challenge Steve as above (the only thing you can't do is report him to your common employer)

- Then ask your friend "John" if he knows "Steve" (the source); ask what he thinks of Steve

- then I think you have to tell "John" that you value his friendship very much and that is why you feel you have to tell him that "Steve" has been saying terrible things about him. You owe him this as a friend

- if it turns out to be false and malicious John is then able to intervene and seek legal redress with you as a witness

- if it turns out to be true then you will have to decide what sort of friend you are to John, can you be a friend in bad times as well as good.

[Krista]

I don't know if I could stop myself in order to wait for further evidence to arise. I would probably say something immediately to the proper outside authorities and let them do the investigation. Usually these types of people are doing more than just molesting children... they are keeping nasty files on their computer or doing something else. If they aren't then something else will be there, a parent's suspicion or something. These things aren't as quiet as people believe. I think the innocence of a child that is being molested/abused outweighs the individual's legal innocence and status.

 

It is a weighted decision. Nothing good can happen by being silent, but a lot of bad can happen if you speak up, but it still has to be done. I believe that if the suspicion is there and a source is present then that is enough to take action. If there is nothing there, then there is nothing there, but I would hate knowing that I knew or suspected and did nothing and a predator walks free. If the allegations are completely false and you spoke up, you lose the friendship. If the allegations are true you have saved a child from abuse. If the allegations are false and he is convicted of the crimes against him, then I would feel shitty about the legal system, but all I would be responsible for is telling the police about a possible child abuse relayed to me by a source that I thought was credible. I would be sure to express my concerns about that source if I thought they could be mistaken or malicious in intent. Would it bother me that I played a part in an innocent person being branded as a sex offender and going to prison, yes, it would bother me a lot.

 

All in all though I feel the investigation has to be made. So yes, I would do it. It is not an easy decision and I would not take it lightly.

[Pete Bruno]

I'm assuming the poster is alluding to the Penn State situation and JoePae. After reading the Grand Jury transcript, I can say that there should be more people fired than just Paterno. The grad student flat out told him that he saw a ten year old boy being sodomized in the shower room, along with a janitor who was afraid of losing his job and did not come forward; at that point all bets are off and you confront the so called longtime friend; and by the way, when Sandusky retired he and JoePa weren't even on speaking terms. As some one who was raped as a nine year old, I can tell you it's not something you ever forget; and the damage permeates every area of your life. What two people over the age of eighteen do is nobody's business, but when it comes to children ethics remain ethics, whether they be old or new.

"Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking. ...Hugh B. Brown

[Persinette]

I admit, I'm not really seeing the difficulty in answering.

 

As I don't have any useful information and, for one reason of another, distrust the originator of the rumour, I would keep a careful eye on my friend while they were around children. I would also keep in mind that being likable doesn't mean they can't have committed atrocities, and that my fondness for them doesn't actually make them a good person.

 

I would not alert the authorities on this shaky a level of knowledge, though.

[JamesSavik]

I think the innocence of a child that is being molested/abused outweighs the individual's legal innocence and status.

 

So it's like the evil doer terrorists that hate us for our freedom. The ends justify the means as long as a child/children are protected?

 

Damn- that was Hillery's line: it's for the children. Goebbels said that you can pass any law as long as it's for the children. Funny that left and right both know that gag.

 

So... we simply ignore the Constitution and due process so we can hang a pervert?

 

What I'm getting at here is that we've seen this sort of thinking before: the Salem Witch Trials and more recently the detention of terror suspects without due process. We have also seen a lot of innocent people that were ground up and spit out by that process.

 

This is the morality play of our day and congratulations, we all fail.

 

We fail to see that we're being played. We are being force fed a diet of fear and we're swallowing it whole. Fear of terrorists, fear of WMDs, fear of crime, fear of drugs, fear of perverts, fear of climate change, fear of environmental destruction, fear of the oceans dying, fear of asteroids, fear of diseases, etc. ad nausea.

 

With all that fear, what do we give up for security? Do we mind warrent-less wiretaps? How about arrests without probable cause? What about searches based on innuendo? Why don't we all just get a chip implanted in out butt so the government knows where we are and what we're doing at all times?

 

Believe me when I say this: we are building a police state that none of us want to live with. As technology improves, it will only get more repressive.

 

Someday- when its your turn to be questioned, will you have any rights at all?

 

After all you were his neighbor/boss/coworker and he was molesting kids for years. You HAD to notice it. I bet you were his lookout! Off with your head pervert enabler!

[Zombie]

So is that what this thread was all about? So you could single out an individual to be strung up, to "hang 'em high"?  Or maybe we're all strung up, whatever was said?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Zombie

[intune]

This is a hard question, so I can only say what I would do. I'm just not sure if watching closely would be enough in this situation. If this person wasn't very secretive about it, then you probably wouldn't be so surprised at the information. It seems like it's better to not take the chance when it might involve a child, and if the person is completely innocent then that will show through an investigation too.

[Palantir]

You've got to be kidding!

This is a long time FRIEND, you've seen NO evidence to support it yourself , the source is DUBIOUS - and you're going to run off and initiate some kind of official investigation?

Not likely.

 

Yes, you would see your friend with different eyes from then on and monitor their behaviour more closely. (A sad situation if your friend was innocent and still sad if they weren't)

Depending on the strength of the friendship and the nature of your friend you might approach them about this DUBIOUS information. - a very difficult decision.

 

Unless you've got RELIABLE evidence, I agree strongly with James that passing judgement is encouraging a climate of fear and distrust.

 

With RELIABLE evidence it's a different story.

[Persinette]

So is that what this thread was all about? So you could single out an individual to be strung up, to "hang 'em high"? Or maybe we're all strung up, whatever was said?

 

Seems so, yes. It's a little baffling.

[Zombie]

Seems so, yes. It's a little baffling.

 

Posing the question was entirely legitimate, and the analogy with Salem was apt. But it's "the set-up" with the rant seemingly pre-planned as the closing "firework" that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. There are some real and serious issues to be discussed here. A pity they weren't raised in a more mature way to enable this to happen instead of trivialising the issue as a cheap stunt.

[Dannsar]

Right, fatal flaw, psychological shift. The 'you' mentioned in the original proposition is not the you that needs to be asked the question. That belongs to 'Steve'. And quite simply, if Steve is willing to talk about it to all and sundry, but not to the police, authorities, employer, and is not asking you for your opinion on the best way to do this, then Steve has dropped the ethical ball, leaving you with an entirely differently grounded problem.

 

The issue now comes to you as one of gossip about something that MUST be reported if there is reasonable justification for suspicion. Steve does not seem to be doing that, so instantly his motives are suspect. I'm afraid the proposition here is wrong.

 

Secondly, if it is about the JoePa case, then there is no ethical issue whatsoever. He was seen doing it by the janitor. The janitor should have reported it. Period. No arguments, ifs, but, maybes, drawings of breath, blinking of eyes, consideration of .... etc etc etc. That the janitor did not stop it, imo, is criminal negligence, and I suspect is conspiracy to the act (someone like Tim will verify that, I am not in a position to discuss US law). The other boy, likewise, but he is a minor and so gets handled differently.

 

However, there is a huge difficulty here. Men are afraid nowadays. I certainly am. One false word and your life is teetering on the edge of over. I insist that the moral dilemma lies with Steve. If Steve was suspicious because something seemed a little off, he should maintain a watching brief for a short period of time to see what happens and come to a conclusion.

 

Steve, in the scenario, is disreputable, so taking his word for anything is pointless. But he may not be crying wolf (again, why is he not crying to the right people?). Now, since he is discussing it with you, then the information is now in the public domain - it is available to all. You have a duty, in my opinion, to take John into your employer's office and lay the whole story out, stating that you don't know anything more than the statement, but that you think it is only fair to John and the putative victim to settle it properly.

 

What happens next is where the nuclear part occurs. There now has to be an investigation. There is no ethical issue for 'you' because the issue is out there already. Actually, by meeting it head on you are going to protect all involved in the issue until one needs to be disciplined. It matters not one jot that John is innocent or guilty. If he is innocent but Steve is spreading rumours, he's buggered before you start. Avoiding the nuclear part is the most important thing until it is clear who should be on the receiving end. In my opinion, both Steve and John should be suspended on full pay while a prima facie investigation is conducted pdq. Employer policy may mandate an automatic police involvement, though.

 

The point of suspending Steve is to protect John if he is innocent. The last thing you want is some vicious arsehole being left at large to spread the bad word. In that scenario, John's life is over, and Steve gets away with it. Also, Steve needs protection from interference as a witness, and he needs to be kept from other potential witnesses.

 

Krista, I hear your points. But you are a woman. I suspect you have no idea of the fear that most men have of allegations of a sex crime, especially against kids. The fact that you are being fed bullets to fire by someone else should make you suspicious in the scenario. But not for too long. If there is even the hint of justification it needs to be followed through.

 

Consider this like a police firearms training exercise. You are put through a building clearing course. There are five goodies and five baddies. Shoot five baddies and you'll probably be ok. Shoot one goody, and it's back to school. Do the same next time, you might not be allowed to hold the gun any more. Shooting John is much the same if he is a goody. And while you're shooting the goody, the baddy may be getting time to shoot you. But before you pull the trigger, you need to make a judgement.

[rustle]

So it's like the evil doer terrorists that hate us for our freedom. The ends justify the means as long as a child/children are protected?

 

Damn- that was Hillery's line: it's for the children. Goebbels said that you can pass any law as long as it's for the children. Funny that left and right both know that gag.

 

So... we simply ignore the Constitution and due process so we can hang a pervert?

 

What I'm getting at here is that we've seen this sort of thinking before: the Salem Witch Trials and more recently the detention of terror suspects without due process. We have also seen a lot of innocent people that were ground up and spit out by that process.

 

This is the morality play of our day and congratulations, we all fail.

 

We fail to see that we're being played. We are being force fed a diet of fear and we're swallowing it whole. Fear of terrorists, fear of WMDs, fear of crime, fear of drugs, fear of perverts, fear of climate change, fear of environmental destruction, fear of the oceans dying, fear of asteroids, fear of diseases, etc. ad nausea.

 

With all that fear, what do we give up for security? Do we mind warrent-less wiretaps? How about arrests without probable cause? What about searches based on innuendo? Why don't we all just get a chip implanted in out butt so the government knows where we are and what we're doing at all times?

 

Believe me when I say this: we are building a police state that none of us want to live with. As technology improves, it will only get more repressive.

 

Someday- when its your turn to be questioned, will you have any rights at all?

 

After all you were his neighbor/boss/coworker and he was molesting kids for years. You HAD to notice it. I bet you were his lookout! Off with your head pervert enabler!

 

Ya know, this is an issue I've had for years. A culture of fear has overtaken us. Our politicians have manipulated it to their advantage, and the detriment of society.

 

Compare the fear-mongering after 9/11 to the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, Americans were encouraged to "be vigilant." After 9/11, we were introduced to a color-coded warning system with no practical purpose other than to ratchet up the fear. How differently should we act act when there's a green alert vs. an orange one? What specific steps should we take?

 

Look at how Israel deals with terrorism. They don't let it prevent them from living their daily lives. They train their security forces differently to deal with situations, and develop plans, policies, and procedures to minimize the risk or inconvenience to the public.

 

The same fear-mongering exists with regard to child moelsters. Really, there are probably no more of them out there now than there were 30 years ago. We just hear a lot more about it. We've all heard statistics about children propositioned on-line, but did you realize the vast majority of those propositions are from kids, and not some aging perv in a darkened room? If not for the internet, most likely, kids would be propositioning each other the same way they used to - in person. Online, it's easier to say, "Ewww."