Number 96 : April 1999 |
I am an intelligent and honest person, with clear (to me) standards of personal and professional ethics. As the result of an error of judgement, I have recently been the subject of criminal charges, trial, and sentence.
I sincerely believe that :-
my thoughts and acts did not break fundamental moral laws, and my acts did not break English law, as I understood the law, at the time.
I now find that :-
English words have different meanings in English law to their dictionary-given meanings and everyday use. In English law the Judge is able to direct a jury to deliver a guilty verdict if they believe the thoughts of a person could be considered to be illegal.
I accept that my behaviour, as presented by a clearly- and intentionally- biased prosecution, could be (and was by those twelve people) viewed as unacceptable to those twelve people; but does it follow that my behaviour was unacceptable to my peers, the 'man-in-the-street', or to "God" ?
That is the background.
I was faced with the choice of going to prison so that my alleged 'evil' thoughts could be changed (i.e. modified to what some people think is correct), or attending a course (on probation) which would change those thoughts.
During a formal interview with a professional psychologist, with 'official' witnesses in attendance, to see whether I would be accepted on the course, it became obvious that I had to admit to having had those 'illegal' thoughts - irrespective of whether I had actually had those thoughts or not ~ so that I could be cured of them, and so that the people running the course could justify their employment. My moral dilemma was - should I have lied and admitted that I had those illegal thoughts so that I could avoid prison, or should I have held to my beliefs and been punished for being honest ?
Similar questions have arisen for individuals many times before in the Salem witchcraft trials, in the inquisition, and for Sir Thomas More, amongst others.
A wider question, especially in the current "business" world, is whether "the bottom line" is the only consideration for an individual - ah, but which bottom line ?
Are there different "frames of reference' here: who / which is right - the biggest / strongest or the morally honest ?
I will gladly respond to readers’ comments in Commensal. I will give more details of my dilemma, and report on progress on the "brain-washing" in Commensal, provided - for the sake of other people - anonymity can be maintained.
If any individual or group would like a face-to-face discussion, or any individual feels that they could offer me advice by letter or in conversation, I would be pleased to communicate openly and in detail, subject to confidentiality.
I also have comments on the gross distortions and unfairness of the legal process.
Fred Hobson
Fred : when you sent this to me, you described it as your latest draft, and that you’d be willing to make changes if I so wished. I hope I haven’t jumped the gun in publishing it.
I have several questions of a logical and philosophical nature, which are not intended to display lack of sympathy for your situation.
You remark on the judge referring to the "thoughts" of a person. This does sound inquisitorial, but maybe "intentions" are what is meant. Intentions are critical to the judicial process, making all the difference between murder and manslaughter, for instance.
Consider the crime of curb-crawling (please would readers note that this is not the crime of which Fred was accused). The law has nothing to say concerning any lascivious thoughts the accused might have had, but only with his intention. Innocently offering a lady a lift might be a legitimate defence, if only on the part of the seriously naive.
Your moral dilemma has nothing to do with the illegality or otherwise of your thoughts, but of the response of one wrongfully accused (assuming this to be the case) where a "not guilty" plea is taken as a symptom of lack of repentance and therefore attracts a larger penalty. I’ve read that this is a particular problem in Japan, where the respect for authority is such that the accused are assumed to be guilty and resistance taken as lack of contrition.
I’m not sure of the cogency of the parallels. I’m not sure whether admission of guilt in the Salem witch trials got the accused off the hook. They were not persecuted for their thoughts, just falsely and hysterically accused. The victims of the inquisition were sometimes oppressed for their beliefs, as was Sir Thomas More. Are you saying that you were accused of holding a belief that you felt was right, though illegal ? The latter two cases are only parallels if your conscientious beliefs are being questioned. Misinterpretation of intention is another matter.
Is the fundamental question "what should an innocent person do in the face of wrongful conviction" ? This depends very much on your moral outlook. If you’re a consequentialist, it will depend whether you think the consequences, all in all on you and others, of any plea-bargaining you might enter into to take the "smaller rap", are more or less terrible than being conscientious. If you’re a deontologist, then absolutes reign and you must tell the truth whatever the consequences.
Theo