The end justifies the means?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusmademe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusmademe

Guest
Let’s assume we have a man (in theory it could be a woman) who calls different women and pays them to have sex with him. The police finds out about this but wait weeks before arresting him in order to find more evidence that will put him in prison. In that period of time the man rapes at least one women.
I actually heard a policeman talk about him having to deal with this. He just hated the situation.
How is this morally ok and how is it from the end justifies the means?
 
So a policeman could be forced to practice the end justifies the means due to typical human imperfections related to bureaucracy and legal procedures?

So if you can stop a rape you are allowed to refrain from doing so accordibg to Catholic morals? You are allowed to let something evil occur for a greater purpose?
 
Last edited:
Was he under suspicion for rape originally?
I thought he was under suspicion for soliciting sexual favors for money.
 
They used Cellphone surveillance and had at least one woman talking with the police about him. I am talking about a real case but I can’t link a video since it is in Swedish.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying that you said exactly that but…it sounded a lot like that.
What did you really say?
 
Police have processes which they follow.

The police are not (yet) a “future crime” agency, the police officers cannot be held responsible for a crime that a person might commit in the future.

What you describe is not a case of “the end justifies the means”, the police have someone under surveillance and that person them commits a different crime. Criminals tend to go deeper into crime.
 
In this case it was not another crime.
What is done here is probably tolerating something evil for a bigger purpose. How is this diffferent from the end justifies the means?
 
Well, you said the police waited because they needed evidence. I think the argument could go the other way as well. Had they arrested the man before he committed the rape, but without sticking to the rules, they would have justifying the means (an illegal arrest) by the end (putting a dangerous man behind bars), and tolerating something evil, ie a serious infringement on individual rights, for a bigger purpose.

I wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of people who work in law-enforcement capacities. This is the kind of situation where there is no right answer and moral grey zones on every side.
 
Please identify what you believe the means and ends to be in this situation. That would be helpful as a starting point in the discussion.
 
In US criminal law, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

It’s one thing to give a lenient bail to a rape suspect, and then that person goes on to commit another assault.

Soliciting prostitution is a sex crime, but it doesn’t predict that the person would go on to commit a violent assault. The justice system doesn’t allow to hold someone for something they might commit.
 
Two things:

Was there any indication that the man was a violent threat that needed to be taken off the streets at once? Rape is not the logical or inevitable outgrowth of hiring prostitutes (a higher than usual correlation, yes, but that’s not enough to make assumptions from). In and of itself the first crime is not an indication that the second crime is likely, let alone imminent. Certainly in cases of imminent threat there is a much more pressing need to isolate someone, but barring that scenario taking the time to be able to properly prosecute someone has little to do with the ends justifying the means.

Human laws are not morality and they aren’t designed to be. There is overlap to be sure, but law is concerned more with the continued functioning of society. Plenty of immoral things are legal and plenty of illegal things are moral. It’s not terribly surprising when the challenges of upholding the law do not mesh with the challenges of upholding moral behavior.
 
the problem is…your scenario is hypothetical, not real.
In this hypothetical scenario you are assuming the role of a god-like figure who knows a woman is raped.

The policeman does not know this. Morality evaluates human acts in real time, not hypothetical situations.
 
Putting someone under criminal investigation, gathering evidence and subpoenas is a far cry from “tolerating something evil”.
 
I saw a three tv documentary in three parts/episodes about a real case so I should probably be able to give an exampld.
Göran Lindberg was arrested but only some time after the police stood outside an apartment and heard him do stuff that was very evil and criminal. They actually kind of already knew what the man wantes to do…but they didn’t know that he was going to be that violent. They even knew of cases before when he had been very violent.

 
Last edited:
jesusmademe said:
What is done here is probably tolerating something evil for a bigger purpose. How is this diffferent from the end justifies the means?
Click to expand...
your premise is false. The police can’t arrest someone without substantial proof. They can take their evidence to the prosecuting attorney who evaluates what they have and can determine if they have probable cause.

This is definitely not a case of ‘The ends justify the means’.
 
And again, please identify what you believe are the means and the ends for this discussion.
 
1ke said:
And again, please identify what you believe are the means and the ends for this discussion.
Click to expand...
Yes this is the issue.
Morality evaluates specific circumstances, intentions, objects, and acts.
 
So I told you about the situation as I understood it from the documentary.
My question is: should they have done something other than just being outside of the apartment?

They wanted him in prison. They let things happen in order to recieve a result (an end), a man in prison. The means would be letting certain things happen.
I am not saying it is exactly like The end justifies the means. Neither am I trying to judge the police. I am only interested in the what Jesus Christ have to tell us about morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top