Instruction
170 Part 3 • Normative Ethics: Theory and Application
BOX 9.1
Policing and the Duty to Tell the Truth
You are a police officer called to testify at a murder trial.
Through your investigation of the case, you and your
partner collected enough physical evidence to ensure a
conviction, including the murder weapon with the
defendant's fingerprints, an audiotape of the defendant
confessing the crime to a cellmate, and a videotape
showing the defendant entering the victim's apartment
building shortly before the time of the offense.
However, you also know that the murder weapon was
obtained through an unconstitutional search of the
defendant's place of residence, and that the audiotape
was acquired in such a way that, if truth be told, it
would likely not be admitted at trial as legally obtained
evidence. Upon taking the stand, you are directly questioned concerning the constitutionality of the search
and the acquisition of the tape.
Kantian ethics would ask that you consider the
following: (1) if you lie, this will likely (but not certainly)
result in the conviction of a known killer; (2) if you tell
the truth, this will likely (but not certainly) result in the
case against a known killer being dismissed for lack of
evidence. Importantly, Kant's deontology would remind
you that there are other potential consequences that you
cannot possibly predict as well. Suppose that having lied,
the truth comes out through some other means—either
during the trial or sometime thereafter. If this happens,
not only will a known killer be found not guilty (or
released on appeal), but you and your partner will likely
be brought up for disciplinary action and reprimand,
face criminal prosecution, and/or lose your jobs. Moreover, the case would bring national media attention,
making you, your partner, your department, the chief of
police, and your entire city look bad in the eyes of the
public. Though it is likely that the criminal trial will be
dismissed for lack of evidence if you tell the truth, it is
also possible that the defendant may be found guilty
anyway—perhaps he unwittingly confesses at trial, or
there is additional testimony from witnesses, friends of
the defendant, and so on, of which you are unaware.
Even if the case were to be dismissed, perhaps new
evidence would emerge sometime in the near future and
the defendant would then be convicted legitimately.
Whatever the consequences of lying or telling the
truth might be, Kant reminds us that we cannot ever
know for sure. The best we can do is to pursue our moral
duty and let the consequences come as they may. In this
instance, our moral duty is to tell the truth. If the criminal
case against the murderer is dismissed because evidence
is lacking, this is certainly not your fault—no one can
blame you for abiding by your moral duty to tell the truth.