Moral Dilemma

[jcd11235 0]

I was recently watching an episode of Lie To Me. At one point in the show, a moral dilemma was proposed that, along with [nerdgirl]'s allegiance thread, inspired this post.

Here's the barely plausible, highly improbable scenario:

Two cops, who I'll call Adam and Bill, are partners who were involved in a work related shooting. Adam incorrectly identified the suspect's cell phone as a gun and reacted by shooting the suspect, who I'll call Carl, twice, critically injuring him, but not killing him. Bill was the first one to the suspect, saw that the "gun" was actually a cell phone, and swapped it for a gun, quickly, before Adam was able to see that he had actually shot someone for pulling out their cell phone.

It turns out that Bill is actually an undercover FBI agent, 16 months into an assignment to watch Adam (unbeknownst to the police department), who is known by the FBI to be a member of a sleeper cell of a known terrorist organization. The FBI have evidence of other cell members in the police department but have thus far only identified and confirmed Adam. The FBI have credible evidence of the cell's plans to carry out an attack within the next 6-9 months. Bill planted the gun to avoid any internal investigation of Adam, which might have the consequence of exposing Adam as a terrorist before the FBI is prepared to move on the whole cell.

Unfortunately, poor Carl, after recovering from his gunshot wounds, is standing trial for attempted murder because he allegedly pulled a gun on two police officers. He maintains that he didn't have a gun, but the prosecution has the gun. The lack of fingerprints has been explained to the jury as being due to Carl wearing gloves, gloves which the prosecution has also entered into evidence. Carl is an innocent man, but faces highly probable conviction without evidence that the gun was planted.

You have both the evidence to clear Carl (and inadvertently implicate Bill for planting the gun) and knowledge of the FBI investigation, including their knowledge of the planned attack. Neither the prosecuting nor defense attorney is aware of the evidence's existence.

Please assume (for the sake of this discussion) the following:

• Carl is a law abiding citizen who is generally considered to be a good man by those who know him.



• The FBI's intelligence is accurate and the investigation is being handled competently.



• Without your evidence, Carl has a 99% chance of being convicted and sentenced to life in prison, with possibility of parole after 25 years in a best case scenario and without any possibility of parole in a worst case scenario.



• With your evidence, Carl will be acquitted, but the resulting investigation into the shooting and subsequent coverup will ruin the FBI's investigation, if not by blowing Bill's cover then by putting so much heat on Adam that the rest of the cells alienates him, eliminating the FBI's best source of intelligence.



• If the FBI investigation is ruined, there is a 90% chance of the terrorist cell attempting to carry out their attack. If attempted, there is a 60% chance of total success and a 10% chance of total failure.



• You have no knowledge of either the scale of the attack or the ideology of the terrorists. Their nationality is likewise unknown to you.

Ultimately, you are put in a position in which you must choose between the safety of your nation and some of the important ideals for which you have longed believed your nation to stand.

Do you present your evidence to prevent an innocent man's conviction and risk the attack on the nation,

OR

Do you withhold your evidence in order to allow the FBI to prevent the attack, taking the near certain risk of a man being convicted and receiving a life sentence for a crime that you know he did not commit?

Why do you make the choice you make?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Thanatos340 1]

I cant see any other possible answer than "Do the right Thing". Knowingly allowing an Innocent man to prison when that person is in fact the Victim is unconscionable in my mind.


Much like the other story line going in that show where The kid screwed up the deal that would have saved peoples pension plans. I think that one is much harder choice.
Let an Innocent man VOLUNTARILY go to jail (to protect his daughter) and save the pension funds.. Or Blow the whistle on the Daughter and let Retirees loose their life savings.
That is a MUCH tougher choice.

[ryoder 1,590]

Dilemma?
Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Crimes that have already been committed:
- Perjury by LE.
- Falsifying evidence.
- Framing an innocent man.

All to prevent a crime someone believes may occur in the future???

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Channman 2]

Set up a mock death of Carl. Move him and his family into protective custody and financially compensate him for his injuries, while keeping Adam in the dark.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Set up a mock death of Carl. Move him and his family into protective custody and financially compensate him for his injuries, while keeping Adam in the dark.

Clever, but it really only avoids the question I'm asking:

When forced to choose, do you choose in favor of protecting your nation from probable attack from her enemies or in favor of ideals for which your nation stands despite understanding that the cost will most likely be in lives?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

Set up a mock death of Carl. Move him and his family into protective custody and financially compensate him for his injuries, while keeping Adam in the dark.

Clever, but it really only avoids the question I'm asking:

When forced to choose, do you choose in favor of protecting your nation from probable attack from her enemies or in favor of ideals for which your nation stands despite understanding that the cost will most likely be in lives?

I was avoiding the question, I didn't have a good answer unless of course torture is involved

[livendive 8]

Not really much of a dilemma. If I hold my tongue, the innocent man has no chance of avoiding imprisonment and bad people are allowed to continue being bad. If I speak the truth, there is a 19% chance that nothing bad will happen, and a high probability that at least some bad people (Adam and Bill) will be prevented from harming innocent people.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Skyrad 0]

keep my mouth shut, let Carl go to prison, when the cell are captured or killed have Carl released. Have the story suppressed and pay of Carl to keep his mouth shut. There is no dilema.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

# With your evidence, Carl will be acquitted, but the resulting investigation into the shooting and subsequent coverup will ruin the FBI's investigation, if not by blowing Bill's cover then by putting so much heat on Adam that the rest of the cells alienates him, eliminating the FBI's best source of intelligence.


# If the FBI investigation is ruined, there is a 90% chance of the terrorist cell attempting to carry out their attack. If attempted, there is a 60% chance of total success and a 10% chance of total failure.

The dilemma falls down right here; it presupposes that you know too much of the future. Ho would I know those consequences for sure?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The dilemma falls down right here; it presupposes that you know too much of the future. Ho would I know those consequences for sure?

My contrived scenario is admittedly limited. Whatever its flaws, the underlying question remains. I threw in the probabilities so the risk of an attack could be perceived the same for everyone reading.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Skyrad 0]

How about this one, its a genuine scenario...

You are an agent handler, your asset is well placed and quite high up in a terrorist organisation. They have been supplying good product for some time (around two to three years). You have a second asset controled by your organisation, they are even higher up in the command structure of the terrorist organisation. The second asset gives you information of a nature that must be acted on. You know that their is suspicions within the terrorist orgaisation that the first asset is an informant. Your asset gets wind of the fact that he is about to be brought in for interrogation by the terrorist organisation.. he runs away and contacts you.

You know that by acting on the information of your second asset you will be compromising him. You have two options.

1) Act on the information, and remove both your assets to safety. Your top placed informant will be burnt as an inteligence asset but both your assets will live.

2) Convince your first lower placed asset that his cover is still intact and send him back to face a long interogation by the terrorist organisation which will include torture and certain death.
Taking this route will shift the leak of information to him and keep your top asset in place. (You know that this will be his fate from HUMINT and COMINT)

Both assets have served you well at great danger to themselves for years, both are dependable.

What do you do?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[FallingOsh 0]

In the first scenario, I'd let poor Carl go to jail. A 90% chance of something catastrophic happening is too high to risk. Like Skyrad said, release him after the cell is brought down.

The second scenario is different since there isn't information guaranteed about the future like the first scenario. The type of information being gathered from the top agent wasn't specified. Bring both sources home safe.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Skyrad 0]

Type of information gathered includes very high grade intelligence. Planned actions, weapons cache locations, explosives cache locations, locations of IED factories, intelligence on political affiliated members, whos who in the organisation, names of targeted individuals.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How about this one, its a genuine scenario...

Interesting scenario, but it doesn't ask the same question I'm interested in.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

All to prevent a crime someone believes may occur in the future???

"may occur"

That is the key phrase. There is no absolute linkage
between the freedom of the person and their future
terrorist crimes.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Type of information gathered includes very high grade intelligence. Planned actions, weapons cache locations, explosives cache locations, locations of IED factories, intelligence on political affiliated members, whos who in the organisation, names of targeted individuals.

Tough one.

I'd stick with my original answer. Sending Carl to jail until it can be cleared up is vastly different than sending a loyal agent to be cut apart for days. Can the cell be eliminated when the two are brought home?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Set up a mock death of Carl. Move him and his family into protective custody and financially compensate him for his injuries, while keeping Adam in the dark.

Given the likely threat to national security, I like this "third" option. There are rarely ever "only" two options. Another option could be to arrange for the prosecution to make an "error" for the defense to exploit and have the charges dismissed.

In the strictest sense of the moral dilemma as presented, the beans have to be spilled. Although, I would make sure I have the resources in place to track the mess that would follow after the truth was known (not so publicly I think).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Type of information gathered includes very high grade intelligence. Planned actions, weapons cache locations, explosives cache locations, locations of IED factories, intelligence on political affiliated members, whos who in the organisation, names of targeted individuals.

I would have to assess how the guys were turned and if they were originally neck deep in the entire organisation, or whether they were placed through the Intel apparatus.

[Niki1 2]

Quote

In the first scenario, I'd let poor Carl go to jail. A 90% chance of something catastrophic happening is too high to risk. Like Skyrad said, release him after the cell is brought down.

-----------------------------------------------------


Let's change the scenario just a little. Instead of Carl, the guy about to go to prison is FallingOsh. Should the person with the evidence come forward or not?

With the "Rule of Unintended Consequences" in mind, I think doing the Right Thing at the moment is the thing to do. Doing a Wrong thing for a Right reason is one of those slippery slope things.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

• Quote

[warpedskydiver 0]

Mock trial and conviction of Carl.

Get a Judge that can be trusted and the rest of the players will not know anything else.

Carl never goes to prison and lives out his life in a nice house in Hawaii

[winsor 236]

Dilemma, hell.

Charge Bill with a host of felonies consistent with his actions.

Run Adam through the shooting board in accordance with procedure.

Cut Carl loose and cover all expenses related to shooting him.

You can't object to someone else breaking laws to which you do not adhere.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

In the first scenario, I'd let poor Carl go to jail. A 90% chance of something catastrophic happening is too high to risk. Like Skyrad said, release him after the cell is brought down.

-----------------------------------------------------


Let's change the scenario just a little. Instead of Carl, the guy about to go to prison is FallingOsh. Should the person with the evidence come forward or not?

With the "Rule of Unintended Consequences" in mind, I think doing the Right Thing at the moment is the thing to do. Doing a Wrong thing for a Right reason is one of those slippery slope things.

Not sure what that has to do with anything or how it changes my answer. The temporary sacrifice of one for saving many. I thought I made the temporary part clear in the rest of my post. Carl (or me if it makes you feel better) gets released with compensation after the cell is brought down. Fake my death and send me packing to the Bahamas with a full checking account. No complaints here.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

• Quote

[TomAiello 26]

Why not just call the DA into the FBI's office and let him know the whole story, then ask him to quietly drop the case?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Why not just call the DA into the FBI's office and let him know the whole story, then ask him to quietly drop the case?

Because the whole purpose of the hypothetical scenario is to create a two option choice. While some clever third options have been presented, that really defeats the purpose of the question. The post wasn't intended to be a riddle that could be creatively solved.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[d_squared431 0]

[Quote]Do you present your evidence to prevent an innocent man's conviction and risk the attack on the nation,

If having one man wrongly accused of a crime to prevent an attack on the nation, then so be it. This could save thousands and thousands of people lives. No one should question that.
Yes, it would be the right thing to do but at the same time, it is also wrong. But just how wrong of an act is it if it saves a nation from an attack?

TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1
I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH
You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly