Reporting crime based on hearsay information

[divinefaith]

Suppose you were aware of a grave crime which took place, but you only know it thru some ‘talk’ which went around. Say for e.g. you’re the third person in line to find out, would you think its a moral obligation to report it. I re-emphasize, you’re not the one who heard it from the one who committed the crime, but thru another person they had told?

 

[ASimon]

Suppose you were aware of a grave crime which took place, but you only know it thru some ‘talk’ which went around. Say for e.g. you’re the third person in line to find out, would you think its a moral obligation to report it. I re-emphasize, you’re not the one who heard it from the one who committed the crime, but thru another person they had told?

Sure, I suppose. By reporting it, you’re just telling the cops. If you’re upfront with what you were told and who told you, I would trust them to handle the situation appropriately. The important thing would be not to unnecessarily embellish the information you do have. If there’s one thing worse than being guilty of a hideous crime, it’s being falsely accused of a hideous crime because people don’t understand how to remain objective about the facts.

 

[didymus]

Suppose you were aware of a grave crime which took place, but you only know it thru some ‘talk’ which went around. Say for e.g. you’re the third person in line to find out, would you think its a moral obligation to report it. I re-emphasize, you’re not the one who heard it from the one who committed the crime, but thru another person they had told?

Unless you witnessed the crime yourself or the person admitted it directly to you, DON’T say anything. If you go to the pass on what is basically gossip (sin of detraction) and possibly accusing an innocent person.

Even if someone admits a crime to you be careful about going to the police. You may wind up behind bars yourself.

 

[divinefaith]

Unless you witnessed the crime yourself or the person admitted it directly to you, DON’T say anything. If you go to the pass on what is basically gossip (sin of detraction) and possibly accusing an innocent person.

Even if someone admits a crime to you be careful about going to the police. You may wind up behind bars yourself.

If you know of a crime it must be morally obligatory to report it. considering that you could be sinning by cooperating in the sin of another by not telling the authorities. Remember the CCC does state there are other ways to be cooperating in sin, and one of them is to neglect reporting the sinful activity when you are obligated to do so (in terms of a criminal matter there could be a civil obligation depending on the law). I dont know how to quote the CCC here but you could read it yourself.

I also dont think its a sin of detraction, because you’re reporting the news for a just reason. I do however, see your point that we might not be sure of the information you heard if you didnt experience it yourself or that person (who was somehow part of the crime) didn’t admit it to you.

 

[divinefaith]

Sure, I suppose. By reporting it, you’re just telling the cops. If you’re upfront with what you were told and who told you, I would trust them to handle the situation appropriately. The important thing would be not to unnecessarily embellish the information you do have. If there’s one thing worse than being guilty of a hideous crime, it’s being falsely accused of a hideous crime because people don’t understand how to remain objective about the facts.

You make sense. I agree that by reporting it you are allowing the authorities to find more evidence on crime. Its their job to work out what to do with the information and what evidence it could provide. And yes, we must remain objective no matter what without embellishing the information.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

If they didn’t report it to you, directly,
you shouldn’t report it, I think, because you are going on hearsay.
We hear rumors all the time.
If we all went running to the police every time someone spread a rumor,
we’d be sending the police on wild goose chases all the time.
And by the way, the police themselves might get ticked off at you
for that, and might even charge you with filing a false report,
and then you could be up the creek without a paddle.

Now, if it’s a particularly heinous thing that has been done,
and if you have GOOD REASON to believe that a certain person did it
((and not liking a person, or thinking he or she is a little weird, is NOT “Good Reason”)),
then you should report your SUSPICIONS to the police for the protection of everyone else.
But be sure and emphasize to the cops that these are your suspicions, not certainties,
that way they can’t accuse you of filing a false report. They hate having their time wasted, and will arrest people who file false reports, it happens all the time.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[thistle]

If they didn’t report it to you, directly,
you shouldn’t report it, I think, because you are going on hearsay.
We hear rumors all the time.
If we all went running to the police every time someone spread a rumor,
we’d be sending the police on wild goose chases all the time.
And by the way, the police themselves might get ticked off at you
for that, and might even charge you with filing a false report,
and then you could be up the creek without a paddle.

Now, if it’s a particularly heinous thing that has been done,
and if you have GOOD REASON to believe that a certain person did it
((and not liking a person, or thinking he or she is a little weird, is NOT “Good Reason”)),
then you should report your SUSPICIONS to the police for the protection of everyone else.
But be sure and emphasize to the cops that these are your suspicions, not certainties,
that way they can’t accuse you of filing a false report. They hate having their time wasted, and will arrest people who file false reports, it happens all the time.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

I agree with you. What is the police expected to do with someone who reports they heard from someone who heard from someone that a crime has been committed.

 

[divinefaith]

How would it classify as a false report if we were only saying what we heard? There would be no need to mention to the police that its a certain fact.

 

[divinefaith]

Now, if it’s a particularly heinous thing that has been done,
and if you have GOOD REASON to believe that a certain person did it
((and not liking a person, or thinking he or she is a little weird, is NOT “Good Reason”)),
then you should report your SUSPICIONS to the police for the protection of everyone else.
But be sure and emphasize to the cops that these are your suspicions, not certainties,
that way they can’t accuse you of filing a false report. They hate having their time wasted, and will arrest people who file false reports, it happens all the time.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

That makes sense. Of course if we report someone, our decision shouldnt be based on the reputation of that person but a more reasonable suspicion. And yes we should explain its a suspicion rather than a certainty.

But I question: wouldnt our objective knowledge of that alleged criminal be convincing that the hearsay might be true. I’ll give a hypothetical example:

You know Joe was a thief (because it was publicized that he had pleaded guilty and was jailed over the past) Later on down the track, Jane tells you that Joe had confessed to her about stealing something valuable recently (after he was released from jail). Jane said this to you as a trusted friend and had no intention to get Joe in another legal process. This is hearsay but would you have the reason to think its very likely and then tell the police what you heard?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If the police have reason to believe that you have information about the crime, believe me, they will find you and ask you questions. If you have merely rumors, however trustworthy you believe them to be, unless it is something that has not happened yet, I would not specifically pass it along.

Now, if the person who told you becomes implicated in some way, then you might be obligated to tell the police what this person told you. It would be a first-hand report at that point.

 

[maryjk]

Unless you witnessed the crime yourself or the person admitted it directly to you, DON’T say anything. If you go to the pass on what is basically gossip (sin of detraction) and possibly accusing an innocent person.

Even if someone admits a crime to you be careful about going to the police. You may wind up behind bars yourself.

What? How are you going to end up behind bars? You do not have to “see” a crime to report it. Where do you think anonymous tips come from?

How would it classify as a false report if we were only saying what we heard? There would be no need to mention to the police that its a certain fact.

Of course it wouldn’t be a false report. When you call, and yes, you should call, you tell the police that you have POSSIBLE information for an ongoing investigation. (If the crime has already been reported and you have information about “who done it”) Or you call and tell the police that you need to report a POSSIBLE crime. (If the crime is not already undergoing investigation.)

No, this is not gossip. This of this scenario:
John, while driving hits a child walking across the street. He drives off, but tells his wife that he did it. His wife, Sue, tells her best friend that John, while drunk, drove home. The friend puts two and two together and realizes that the child was hit while John was driving home drunk. She tells her husband that she is worried that it was John that hit the child. The police are asking for anyone to come forward with information. What does The friend do? What about her husband?

I say, one of them needs to call the police. I know I would. If you prefer, you don’t have to give your name.

 

[Catholic90]

What? How are you going to end up behind bars? You do not have to “see” a crime to report it. Where do you think anonymous tips come from?

Of course it wouldn’t be a false report. When you call, and yes, you should call, you tell the police that you have POSSIBLE information for an ongoing investigation. (If the crime has already been reported and you have information about “who done it”) Or you call and tell the police that you need to report a POSSIBLE crime. (If the crime is not already undergoing investigation.)

No, this is not gossip. This of this scenario:
John, while driving hits a child walking across the street. He drives off, but tells his wife that he did it. His wife, Sue, tells her best friend that John, while drunk, drove home. The friend puts two and two together and realizes that the child was hit while John was driving home drunk. She tells her husband that she is worried that it was John that hit the child. The police are asking for anyone to come forward with information. What does The friend do? What about her husband?

I say, one of them needs to call the police. I know I would. If you prefer, you don’t have to give your name.

 

[raaucoin]

if it is a grave crime, report it with the info. that you heard it and don’t know if it is actually true. Let the police do their job and investigate(or not). As an example- most people will not be eye witnesses to the crime of child sexual abuse. If witnesses wait to see it, many children will remain in danger.
There’s a difference in calling the police and saying “Susie committed this crime” vs. “I don’t know if it is actually true, but I heard that a terrible crime was committed. Because of the seriousness, I thought it best to report what I heard.”

 

[michelleds]

some people have been watching too much television!

seriously, the last two posters have it right. if you have information about a crime, you should report it. you should be sure to tell the police where you heard the information (X told me that Y said…).

think about it this way: some guy breaks into your house and steals your stuff. Joe across the street sees it happening but doesn’t call the police. however, he tells another neighbor that he saw some guy he thought looked like Jim Black coming out of your house. wouldn’t you want that second neighbor to call the police and tell them what they heard?

 

[Catholic1954]

Most police agencies have a crime stopper tip line where you can and leave your information but not give your name. Many crimes have been solved by these kind of tips, if it is serious and you think you have reliable information, you should call.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Most police agencies have a crime stopper tip line where you can and leave your information but not give your name. Many crimes have been solved by these kind of tips, if it is serious and you think you have reliable information, you should call.

That’s the best suggestion yet.

:yup:

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**But I question: wouldnt our objective knowledge of that alleged criminal be convincing that the hearsay might be true. I’ll give a hypothetical example:

You know Joe was a thief (because it was publicized that he had pleaded guilty and was jailed over the past) Later on down the track, Jane tells you that Joe had confessed to her about stealing something valuable recently (after he was released from jail). Jane said this to you as a trusted friend and had no intention to get Joe in another legal process. This is hearsay but would you have the reason to think its very likely and then tell the police what you heard? **

You give a good hypothetical example !!
I would ask myself first, is Jane ticked off at Joe about something?
Have they had a fight? Sometimes people angry at another do fabricate things.
If I have no reason to believe that Jane is making it up, I would first try to ascertain whether Joe confessed this ONLY to Jane. Why? Because if I anonymously rat him out, he would then know that it was Jane who told people what he did. Then, if he makes bail, he might do something to her in revenge. I wouldn’t want to be even remotely responsible for that. If Jane’s story to me is reasonalble and convincing, and IF I knew Joe and his address, I would first TYPE an anyonymous letter on the word processor and send it to him, letting him know that I (and I wouldn’t give my name) know that he stole that $10,000 gold watch from so-and-so, and that if he doesn’t return it to so-and-so within seven days (and I am going to check with so-and-so to see if he gets it back), then I will turn him over to the cops. Some will object, BUT THAT GIVES JOE TIME TO DISPOSE OF THE STOLEN WATCH !! And of course, you are right, but if he were going to do THAT, he would probably have already done it BEFORE he told Jane, or at least well before Jane got around to telling ME. All this of course assumes that I also know the person he allegedly stole it from.
But if I don’t have reliable (really reliable to my standards) info that Joe in fact stole the $10,000 watch, then no, even if I am friends with Jane and generally trust her, no, I am not going to accuse Joe to the cops. Cuz what if he DIDN’T do it, but the cops file charges, and then Joe has to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorney’s fees to defend himself from a false charge? Even if he is acquitted, he may have wiped out his family’s life savings for no valid reason. After all, the cops and the courts aren’t going to volutarily reimburse him $35,000 in lawyers fees if he gets acquitted. If he was falsely accused, then the ones who accused him without solid evidence, should have to pay his attorney’s fees.
Report him just because he has stolen something in the past?
NO.
People sin, and then repent, all the time.
That’s like accusing a man today of being a wanton adulterer because
he committed adultery many times back in the 1980s or something.
He may have been repentant for 20 years or more, and then get accused of
adultery when he is now entirely innocent, and everyone believes the accusation because
of his long repented sins. That isn’t right, either.
These are serious dilemmas and there are no easy answers.
NOW. If I see a grown man on an elementary school schoolyard,
dealing dangerous illegal drugs to little kids, then even though I HATE to get ANYBODY
in trouble, by heaven I am going to report him for that. Because: 1) I saw it, and 2) he is endangering the lives of those poor kids. That is intolerable and he has to be stopped from doing that.
A one-time family friend, who became a born-again protestant Christian, fell back into his old ways and even started dealing drugs, even to schoolkids (we didn’t know this was going on). The police and I think the FBI too, at the same time were engaging in a “sting” operation to stop drug dealers who were dealing at school playgrounds. They caught him red-handed dealing the drugs to the kids and arrested him.
He died in the jail, and it is believed that he committed suicide by banging his head
repeatedly against the concrete wall of the jail behind his bed.
I hope he didn’t go to hell, because I DO know that before he got back into drug-dealing, his life had fallen apart financially and he was wiped out and couldn’t take care of his own kids. I don’t condone what he did at all, but I do understand the despair that (partially) led him to start dealing again.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[divinefaith]

Jaypee, you have good points. But what would you say about having remote cooperation in other people’s crimes\sins? What about when there’s a legal obligation to report the crime, wouldnt we be sinning if we break that law, since we’re called to be obedient towards legal authority (which of course does not oppose our Catholic morals).

 

[Blossoming]

If you feel certain enough regarding knowledge of a crime, you should feel certain enough to report it under your own name.

In addition, it might be helpful for you to know that it is my understanding, as a relative is a peace officer, that the police take far more interest in the person calling in the alleged crime than in pursuing whatever information you have given.

If the information is deemed valid, you will be told you cannot remain anonymous at risk of charges and then asked to be a witness and you cannot do that anonymously.

If you have turned someone in and it is not deemed valid, you might well get hit with a charge of filing false charges for wasting police time on a personal feud. Using police authority to attack another person with false allegations is a form of harassment and it is illegal.

 

[divinefaith]

If the information is deemed valid, you will be told you cannot remain anonymous at risk of charges and then asked to be a witness and you cannot do that anonymously.

From what I thought if you choose to stay anonymous in a police report then you can. Dont quote me on this, I dont know much about law.
Besides, if you got the news thru hearsay I doubt thats even relevant as court evidence, but if you were a direct witness you most likely can testify. Again, one needs to research the topic to be definate.