Dishonesty as a necessary condition for parole

[fast]

Scenario:

You didn’t rape anyone, but you are subsequently accused, charged, and sentenced. You become eligible for parole after serving eight years in prison for committing a crime you did not commit. You have good reason to believe that you will be released if you perjure yourself (or lie under oath), but you are unwilling to perjure yourself, even for the very freedom that you so dearly cherish.

After an additional eight years in prison, you become eligible for parole yet again, but this time, you are willing to perjure yourself –willing to lie under oath for your freedom. You tell the tale of an act that you did not commit, and you are subsequently released.

Within six months, new DNA evidence comes to light that demonstrates your innocence. You are exonerated of all charges and free to go.

Within three months, new charges are brought up, but this time, it isn’t for a crime you did not commit. Instead, you are brought up for a crime you did commit. You are charged with perjury and face up to twenty years in prison. You lied under oath, and that is illegal, and you were going to be sentenced to twenty years, but they decided to treat sixteen of those years as time served.

You are sentenced to four years in prison.

From a moral perspective, are we justified in standing behind those that do believe he ought to serve an additional four years for the crime that was committed?

Lying to get what you want, even if it’s what you deserve, is wrong, isn’t it?

[general_koffi]

Within three months, new charges are brought up, but this time, it isn’t for a crime you did not commit. Instead, you are brought up for a crime you did commit. You are charged with perjury and face up to twenty years in prison. You lied under oath, and that is illegal, and you were going to be sentenced to twenty years, but they decided to treat sixteen of those years as time served.

Uh... The law is not interpreted literally if it would result in absurdity. Courts consider the intention of the legislature when dealing with legislation/codified laws, and the interests of justice when dealing with the common law.

I don't know how parole hearings work in America, but is the prisoner under legal oath in such circumstances anyway?

[J842P]

From a moral perspective, are we justified in standing behind those that do believe he ought to serve an additional four years for the crime that was committed?

Lying to get what you want, even if it’s what you deserve, is wrong, isn’t it?

No and no.

[whichphilosophy]

If the perjury was for lying to be released on parole I don't see how anyone would even bring that to a court, let alone get a conviction.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ah, but is it wrong?

You lied to get your way. You declared you did something that you did not do. You provided the family of the victim a target for their anger and hatred. You destroyed your own image that was held by your loved ones, likely causing them grief. You have blocked any further investigation as to who was the real guilty party and you gave that guilty party relief in knowing this. You effected various people in various ways through your deception. Should you be punished?

I think maybe so. Good question. Hard to answer. Likely depends on the particular facts at hand.

[mrunicycler]

You would not have had to lie if the courts/etc had done a better job in the first place. The courts would rightly take this into consideration.

And, I can't speak for everyone else, but the slander done to my name would be assuaged a great deal by the millions of dollars the state would subsequently pay me.

They couldn't give me enough for 8 years of my life, but I'm not so proud that they couldn't buy my shame.

[fast]

Ah, but is it wrong?

You lied to get your way. You declared you did something that you did not do. You provided the family of the victim a target for their anger and hatred. You destroyed your own image that was held by your loved ones, likely causing them grief. You have blocked any further investigation as to who was the real guilty party and you gave that guilty party relief in knowing this. You effected various people in various ways through your deception. Should you be punished?

I think maybe so. Good question. Hard to answer. Likely depends on the particular facts at hand.
Great post!

[fast]

Uh... The law is not interpreted literally if it would result in absurdity. Courts consider the intention of the legislature when dealing with legislation/codified laws, and the interests of justice when dealing with the common law. Yes, prosecutorial discretion can sometimes work in our favor, but if you are to destroy something, make it not the example I use but rather the underlying moral issue.

I don't know how parole hearings work in America, but is the prisoner under legal oath in such circumstances anyway?There may be flaws in the example, just as there were flaws in the movie Double Jeopardy, but it's the moral issue (and not the example exemplifying it) that is here for you to take to task.

[fast]

No and no.
I like that. Very clear answers. Very direct and to the point. I like it.

Now, support your answers.

[fast]

If the perjury was for lying to be released on parole I don't see how anyone would even bring that to a court, let alone get a conviction.Okay. Jolly gave some good reasons. What about the moral issue? Specifically, is [and if so, why is (?)] lying to get what you want, even if it’s what you deserve, wrong?

[fast]

You would not have had to lie if the courts/etc had done a better job in the first place. Granted.

The courts would rightly take this into consideration.It would perhaps mitigate, yes, but that's not enough to exculpate.

And, I can't speak for everyone else, but the slander done to my name would be assuaged a great deal by the millions of dollars the state would subsequently pay me.Alright.

They couldn't give me enough for 8 years of my life, but I'm not so proud that they couldn't buy my shame.Okay, but this isn't about pride. This is about someone doing what's wrong then possibly later trying to justify his immoral actions. Why does the fact that he should never have been in that predicament justify his behavior?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Scenario:

You didn’t rape anyone, but you are subsequently accused, charged, and sentenced. You become eligible for parole after serving eight years in prison for committing a crime you did not commit. You have good reason to believe that you will be released if you perjure yourself (or lie under oath), but you are unwilling to perjure yourself, even for the very freedom that you so dearly cherish.

After an additional eight years in prison, you become eligible for parole yet again, but this time, you are willing to perjure yourself –willing to lie under oath for your freedom. You tell the tale of an act that you did not commit, and you are subsequently released.

Within six months, new DNA evidence comes to light that demonstrates your innocence. You are exonerated of all charges and free to go.

Within three months, new charges are brought up, but this time, it isn’t for a crime you did not commit. Instead, you are brought up for a crime you did commit. You are charged with perjury and face up to twenty years in prison. You lied under oath, and that is illegal, and you were going to be sentenced to twenty years, but they decided to treat sixteen of those years as time served.

You are sentenced to four years in prison.

From a moral perspective, are we justified in standing behind those that do believe he ought to serve an additional four years for the crime that was committed?

Lying to get what you want, even if it’s what you deserve, is wrong, isn’t it?

Sure you did wrong. Then again...

The bastard who charged you with perjury should be skinned alive and left to die over a bed of broken glass.

Fuck, you didn't do anything evil, you were the victim of an injustice, sentenced to waste your precious life for nothing at all, thanks to the rotten justice system. Obsruction of justice? I doubt it. There was no justice in staying in prison any longer -who will give you back your lost years? The system already obstructed justice (albeit unknowingly) by closing your case and giving you a sentence you did not deserve.

I salute the perjurious Robin Hood.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

You lied to get your way.As did the man who told the Gestapo that there were no Jews in his house.

[Trout]

Just as an aside one thing I always find bizarre is how potential parolees as well as people being sentenced are usually treated worse if they don't make some sort of general guilt admission, say they are "sorry" and all that crap.

Maybe it's a throw back to placing some type of worth on confessional logic.

[fast]

You lied to get your way.As did the man who told the Gestapo that there were no Jews in his house.

We're apt to justify his actions in a way unlike the man who lied in my scenario. I'd be inclined to think the differences between the two scenarios are too great for comparison.

We are likely to say the man is justified for telling the Gestapo what he did, but do you find a similarly comparable justification for the man who lied in my scenario?

[fast]

Sure you did wrong.
Killing people is generally wrong, for killing people is generally unjustified. For example, a police officer killing someone for no good reason is wrong, but if it's a killing that is justified (i.e killing a bad guy who is about to kill an innocent one), then the killing is an exception to the general rule that killing people is wrong. Plainly put, the distinction between a justified killing and an unjustified killing makes for the difference of whether or not we should label the killing wrong.

Simarly, lying is generally wrong, for lying is generally unjustified. However, like killing, so too does lying bring exceptions. Hoodoo Ulove brought up the Gestapo example that illustrates an exception. Hence, although lying is generally wrong, there are exceptions.

Why can't an innocent person lying to a parole board for freedom be considered an exception?

[Hoodoo Ulove]

We are likely to say the man is justified for telling the Gestapo what he did, but do you find a similarly comparable justification for the man who lied in my scenario?Yes. You may reply that the man in your story lied to benefit himself, rather than another.

Let's look at two versions of the Gestapo story. In one, the Jew being hidden is a cantankerous, unpleasant old man. In the second, she is a beautiful, desirable young woman, who loves and makes love with the man hiding her. Since the hider benefits personally in the second version of my story, should he give her to the Gestapo?

[fast]

Let's look at two versions of the Gestapo story. In one, the Jew being hidden is a cantankerous, unpleasant old man. In the second, she is a beautiful, desirable young woman, who loves and makes love with the man hiding her. Since the hider benefits personally in the second version of my story, should he give her to the Gestapo?No. He may do what's right for the wrong reason, but he does what's right nevertheless--which it to tell a lie THAT goes to save the life of another.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

He may do what's right for the wrong reason, but he does what's right nevertheless--which it to tell a lie THAT goes to save the life of another.Do you expect someone to give you a rule to follow that will set the limit on exactly how important the countervailing consideration must be to make lying the right thing?

[fast]

Do you expect someone to give you a rule to follow that will set the limit on exactly how important the countervailing consideration must be to make lying the right thing?I wasn't expecting it, but now that you mention it, you got me yearning for one. Thanks a lot! :D

How can we tell the difference between someone who is trying to justify his actions and someone who is justifying his actions?

[JragonFli]

Watch the movie Shawshank Redemption.

Red makes a great point in the movie, which I don't remember well enough to quote. "When they sentence you to life, life is exactly what they take from you." His point was that no one who actually wants to get out of the prison ever did....they only let you out when you didn't care any more.The whole parole process is a bit screwed up in America anyways.

Either way, if he was exonerated by DNA evidence, he would have a great case to sue the courts for wrongful conviction. Several people have recently received huge settlements in the Millions of dollars. I don't think it is enough renumeration.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

How can we tell the difference between someone who is trying to justify his actions and someone who is justifying his actions?You might look into whether his actions are justified.

[Tigers!]

If the perjury was for lying to be released on parole I don't see how anyone would even bring that to a court, let alone get a conviction.Okay. Jolly gave some good reasons. What about the moral issue? Specifically, is [and if so, why is (?)] lying to get what you want, even if it’s what you deserve, wrong?

Isn't there a difference in what you want and what you deserve?
In the case you raise they are one and the same but that is not always so.
An example I have seen many times in my work career are people who lie to get a raise/promotion etc: They may want it but they don't always deserve it.

The ends vs. the means is still a good rule of thumb.