# State of California lures parole violators in with offer of amnesty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613 "2010-05-16T04:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/41 "2010-05-18T01:33:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Ah, to defend the honor system you wouldn’t want to be caught in your dishonesty. I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. There’s no “defending” the honor system, it’s simply a description of how taxes actually are reported and collected in the US. Regardless of the merits of the hypothetical case I mentioned, the fact remain that a big part of our civil society is based on implicit trust between citizenry and government. > [@](#): > > But the big difference is that these people were not going on trial, and the state was not collecting incriminating evidence. The scam was not to collect anything but the idiots. The state is taking advantage of its own image of trustworthiness. Even though the people it was fooling totally had it coming, the state stands to damage its trustworthy image by leveraging it this way. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/42 "2010-05-18T02:12:49Z")
> [@](#): > > I think Little Nemo made himself perfectly clear the first time. In the first instance, the officer is posing as another criminal, or as a potential scam artist, or whatever. In the second, you have people acting with the supposed imprimatur of the state. Exactly. This is not a situation where police officers were pretending to be criminals. This is a situation where they were being police officers and pretending to tell the truth about the law. When you see a person that you know is on-duty police officer, you should be able to trust him. Not worry that he might have a hidden motive to lie to you. This enhanced trust is the reason why impersonating a police officer is a crime - it prevents non-police from abusing the trust given to the police. And scams like the OP are wrong for the same reason - they allow the real police to abuse the trust they should deserve. > [@](#): > > If this were some sort of rogue cop deal, that would be one thing. I assume it got reviewed. It is kind of like wiretapping. It was not the wiretapping per se that I objected to during the Bush years, but that they refused to get the legally mandated approval. If this is the worst the cops around here do, I’m not worried at all. Are you arguing what’s legal or what’s moral here? If it’s just a legal issue, consult an attorney. But the law isn’t always moral - and we as citizens have the right and duty to correct the law when it isn’t. And it’s a bad idea to give the government the idea that you’re willing to accept a little bit of immorality (or illegality) as long as the trains run on time. The time to worry about the government going too far is when it abuses anyone’s rights - not to figure you’ll worry about rights if yours are ever personally threatened. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/43 "2010-05-18T07:24:37Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. There’s no “defending” the honor system, it’s simply a description of how taxes actually are reported and collected in the US. Regardless of the merits of the hypothetical case I mentioned, the fact remain that a big part of our civil society is based on implicit trust between citizenry and government. But that trust goes both ways, and in the case of the parole violators, they broke the trust first. > [@](#): > > The state is taking advantage of its own image of trustworthiness. Even though the people it was fooling totally had it coming, the state stands to damage its trustworthy image by leveraging it this way. Well, the image of someone just shocked, shocked at the state being untrustworthy is pretty amusing - especially criminals who have been to jail. If the state only lied to convicted criminals violating their parole, I think we’d be in pretty good shape. I trust you don’t mind us lying to our enemies in time of war, or do you, like that old British officer, are against breaking codes because gentlemen don’t read each others mail? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/44 "2010-05-18T07:28:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are you arguing what’s legal or what’s moral here? If it’s just a legal issue, consult an attorney. But the law isn’t always moral - and we as citizens have the right and duty to correct the law when it isn’t. > > And it’s a bad idea to give the government the idea that you’re willing to accept a little bit of immorality (or illegality) as long as the trains run on time. The time to worry about the government going too far is when it abuses anyone’s rights - not to figure you’ll worry about rights if yours are ever personally threatened. Just as it is moral to lie to enemies in times of war, it is moral to lie to convicted felons in order to get them back with minimal risk to them and others. Such a well targeted ploy is exceedingly moral. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/45 "2010-05-18T07:49:01Z")
It’s legal, but it isn’t moral to lie to someone who wants to be law abiding and has made mistakes and wants to repent to lie about amnesty. Never trust the cops and always work through a lawyer. The cops don’t need you and expect the same in return. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/46 "2010-05-18T07:52:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Just as it is moral to lie to enemies in times of war, it is moral to lie to convicted felons in order to get them back with minimal risk to them and others. Such a well targeted ploy is exceedingly moral. In your view, does that extend to, say, putting on the enemy’s uniform and infiltrating his ranks? I’d be interested to see you address directly my IRS analogy above. Even if (in that hypothetical) the IRS were absolutely in the right and the malfeasant tax return filers were absolutely in the wrong, do you think it would be in the IRS’s own _interest_ to pull such a stunt – or do you agree with me that it would lead to the whole system breaking down? > [@](#): > > Well, the image of someone just shocked, shocked at the state being untrustworthy is pretty amusing I think you put an enormous store of trust in the state every day without thinking twice about it. I’m assuming you’ve never been in a country where bribery and selective enforcement of the law is par for the course, and the last people you ever want to go to for help is the police. Maybe you should try it some time. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/47 "2010-05-18T07:56:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Just as it is moral to lie to enemies in times of war, it is moral to lie to convicted felons in order to get them back with minimal risk to them and others. Such a well targeted ploy is exceedingly moral. Between you and Little Nemo, I’d be more inclined to respect the views of the guy who actually works with convicted felons. I’m guessing it’s not you. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/48 "2010-05-18T07:56:57Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > I’m assuming you’ve never been in a country where bribery and selective enforcement of the law is par for the course, and the last people you ever want to go to for help is the police. Maybe you should try it some time. I’m gathering that if you live in the United States that you are white in skin tone. Law enforcement is selective in this country. The US might not be corrupt as some other places, but who you are, the color of your skin and the politics of the police and judges really does matter a great deal. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/49 "2010-05-18T08:04:42Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Just as it is moral to lie to enemies in times of war, it is moral to lie to convicted felons in order to get them back with minimal risk to them and others. :eek: You honestly think it’s moral to lie about an amnesty during war? To offer the enemy an amnesty and then renege? Those morals of yours are… interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/50 "2010-05-18T08:04:42Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I’m gathering that if you live in the United States that you are white in skin tone. Law enforcement is selective in this country. The US might not be corrupt as some other places, but who you are, the color of your skin and the politics of the police and judges really does matter a great deal. So, do you endorse this practice? Or do you feel it undermines the ability of the legal system to work with the community and do its job? 'Cause that’s the question at hand in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/51 "2010-05-18T10:02:44Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It’s legal, but it isn’t moral to lie to someone who wants to be law abiding and has made mistakes and wants to repent to lie about amnesty. Never trust the cops and always work through a lawyer. The cops don’t need you and expect the same in return. Part of being law abiding (along with the whole social contract) is accepting responsibility for your own actions. Lying low and avoiding the authorities while hoping they forget about you or somehow lose the records that you violated parole is not someone who wants to repent. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/52 "2010-05-18T11:05:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > :eek: > > You honestly think it’s moral to lie about an amnesty during war? To offer the enemy an amnesty and then renege? > > Those morals of yours are… interesting. Personally I think whether it’s “moral” or not is irrelevant; it’s just a bad idea. In such an instance, as in the OP, the state loses any future credibility with regard to genuine offers. It doesn’t matter whether the targets are Nazis or nuns; the damage is being done to the state itself. Those prize giveaway scams, however - always good for a laugh. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/53 "2010-05-18T11:11:22Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Personally I think whether it’s “moral” or not is irrelevant; it’s just a bad idea. In such an instance, as in the OP, the state loses any future credibility with regard to genuine offers. It doesn’t matter whether the targets are Nazis or nuns; the damage is being done to the state itself. If I could piggyback on your post – yes, in part this was the point I was trying to make. I’m not “shocked, shocked” at anything except the degree to which organizations can shoot themselves in the foot, practically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/54 "2010-05-18T11:11:30Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Personally I think whether it’s “moral” or not is irrelevant; it’s just a bad idea. In such an instance, as in the OP, the state loses any future credibility with regard to genuine offers. It doesn’t matter whether the targets are Nazis or nuns; the damage is being done to the state itself. This has been raised before without much in the way of explanation. Why would a state genuinely offer mass amnesty to convicted felons who have violated the conditions of their parole and absconded? Particularly since any blanket amnesty would mean an amnesty for those who have committed any and all crimes for which parole was even an option. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/55 "2010-05-18T12:45:44Z")
So… in the scams where wanted felons are told they’ve won a free 37’ cabin cruiser, and arrested when they show up to collect… must the state actually provide a cabin cruiser or risk losing the trust of the populace? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/56 "2010-05-18T13:13:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… in the scams where wanted felons are told they’ve won a free 37’ cabin cruiser, and arrested when they show up to collect… must the state actually provide a cabin cruiser or risk losing the trust of the populace? Little Nemo and I have drawn the distinction three times now. If you wish to disagree with the distinction, that’s fine, but don’t you think it’s a little bit beneath you to be deliberately obtuse? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/57 "2010-05-18T13:23:11Z")
I think it kinda boils down to the wording of the offer. “Report in and you will get $200/amnesty” is unethical, lying, and damaging, even if legal. “Report in and you could receive $200/qualify for amnesty” is…weaselly, and a bit tarnishing, but not nearly as unethical. No promises are actually being made, and it’s no different than sweepstakes notices. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/58 "2010-05-18T13:27:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… in the scams where wanted felons are told they’ve won a free 37’ cabin cruiser, and arrested when they show up to collect… must the state actually provide a cabin cruiser or risk losing the trust of the populace? > [@Koxinga](#): > > Little Nemo and I have drawn the distinction three times now. If you wish to disagree with the distinction, that’s fine, but don’t you think it’s a little bit beneath you to be deliberately obtuse? Presumably you mean this distinction: > [@](#): > > Exactly. This is not a situation where police officers were pretending to be criminals. This is a situation where they were being police officers and pretending to tell the truth about the law. But when the news gets out – that is, after the felons are arrested, _sans_ motorboat, the news reports that the police did this. So everyone listening, everyone hearing about the event – the very audience whose trust you contend will be damaged by revelations of police dishonesty – are hearing an example of police dishonesty. So that’s exactly what I’m doing: disagreeing with the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/59 "2010-05-18T13:51:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But when the news gets out – that is, after the felons are arrested, _sans_ motorboat, the news reports that the police did this. So everyone listening, everyone hearing about the event – the very audience whose trust you contend will be damaged by revelations of police dishonesty – are hearing an example of police dishonesty. I’m not talking about extrapolations of “but when the news gets out . . .” I’m talking about the thing in itself, whether an officer of the law was speaking _as_ an officer of the law, making representations of what the law _is_. I’m kind of surprised that you don’t see it, or you think it trivial enough to hand wave away. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/60 "2010-05-18T14:06:00Z")
Let me ask you a question, and I’d really like an answer: imagine you had a chance to help out your local police department in carrying out a sting to catch parole violators. You have two choices. In choice (1), you can adopt a pretend name, put on a plaid sportscoat and act like you’re conducting a sweepstakes for a 37 foot cabin cruiser. Nobody knows your real name, nobody knows you’re an attorney. In choice (2), you use your real name and simply sign a statement that appears on the police department’s web site: “As a member of the California bar, I, Bricker Esq, affirm that this amnesty offer is the real deal and you ought to take advantage of it.” For you, Bricker, would the two choices be ethically, professionally, and morally equivalent? If it’s not so and either choice presents a problem, could you explain why that is? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613.md?page=4)