2006-09-12 18:07:40 · 7 answers · asked by emkay60613 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Corporations
Sounds like times is into doing illegal drugs. Maybe we should rat him out. You could call what you're talking about snitching or narking but you could also call it whistleblowing. It seems to me you have to consider the seriousness of what you want to expose. Some things are crimes and probably shouldn't be. Many would argue that casual drug use would fall into that category. There have been other examples where what it's illegal one year isn't the next such as with Prohibition. Should alcohol ever have been illegal? And still other violations of the law should be considered illegal but are so petty that you should ask yourself is it your place to really get involved.
However, despite all these examples one shouldn't write off what you're talking about in absolutely all situations. Think about the whistleblowers at Enron and Worldcom. What if, for example, you worked for a defense contractor, who was building unsafe equipment and selling it to the US military and let's also assume that you signed a confidentiality agreement before working there. I think we'd all agree that in such cases one should blow the whistle even if it did mean violating a contract. Now maybe you shouldn't immediately leak classified information to the NY Times, but there are procedures for whistleblowers to follow.
BTW, nealhill, he wasn't asking what was illegal (such as entrapment or B&E). The fact that he was breaking the law was already acknowledged in his question. He was asking if such actions are sometimes MORALLY correct DESPITE being illegal.
Silverfox, breaking the law and then snitching on an accomplice to get out of it is not what he was asking about either. Sure sometimes people snitch for those reasons and a damn good thing too or even fewer crooks would go to jail. But sometimes people expose others for more altruistic reasons such as merely not wanting someone to get away with something wrong. In this case the law was broken in order to expose someone not the other way around as you suggest.
2006-09-12 18:23:45 · answer #1 · answered by mrcma 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The end does not justify the means. This goes for entrapment, etc.
You, for example, can't break into someone's house just because you're sure you think they are a serial killer... nor can the police... that's what warrants are for.
Although, the end MAY get you off without a sentence or conviction... but you STILL broke the law; you simply weren't convicted.
2006-09-12 18:15:45 · answer #2 · answered by nealhill 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like YOUS A SNITCH! It is never justified. Why expose are you hiding nothing yourself. Then what exactly are you justifying, the right to be a NARC, it does not exist. People like you only create more problems by not carrying your own.
2006-09-12 18:12:50 · answer #3 · answered by Thin King 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two wrongs do not make a right. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.(Newtons third law)
2006-09-12 18:41:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is the laws job to do this not yours only a snitch does this to keep out of trouble as well . in my opion?
2006-09-12 18:16:52 · answer #5 · answered by the_silverfoxx 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently... only if you are the law.
2006-09-12 18:10:25 · answer #6 · answered by Angie B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like you are the HP's chairwoman ....
2006-09-12 18:16:33 · answer #7 · answered by trademefx 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋