Sunday, January 14, 2007

A liar on lying

We are all a bunch of miserable liars. I watch people do it all day at work. "Did you do it?" "No I didn't do that." I know they did it and so do they and yet we have the charade. I come home and find one of my kids has transgressed one of my households social codes and I ask them "did you do it?" And the first answer, the natural one, is "no." Even my wife and I lie to each other on ocassion. Of course I, like everyone else, don't consider my lie a lie. I consider myself a person of integrity.
When I questioned my first suspect alone and was able to get multiple indicators of guilt but not a confession I asked for help. The investigator that helped me took a completely different approach. I had started out showing him the evidence that I had and the state statutes hoping to scare him into a confession. I went in, in essence, asking the suspect to drop his guard and be honest. My friend went in playing to the suspects presuppositions about himself, that he is a good guy, and his lies about the crime, that it was an accident and unintentional. The truth is that the crime was intentional. It bothered me that my friend was "lying" to the suspect in an effort to get him to drop his guard and confess. It worked in the end and he confessed, although only to his re-engineered version of the story. As a believer this was always a part of the job that mad me uncomfortable. Weren't believers supposed to be characterized by the truth? As I have continued to think about this method of questioning a suspect I have begun to understand it differently. Jesus himself said that we should be as gentle as doves but as shrewd as snakes. Is it reasonable to believe that I can lead a scoflaw into the truth with the bait of truth? He has no desire for it. He wants to hide the truth. The truth is embarrasing and incriminating. I think that is why Jesus handled the woman at the well like he did. He built rapport with her first. Showed her a desire for her welfare.
Any thoughts...

4 Comments:

At 1/29/2007 4:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting! I believe a person will not knowingly perform a crime (or do something wrong). If so, the individual either: has justified to their own cause or beliefs, or believes a different set of morals/laws/ethics (codes) than you.

Any comments on that?

 
At 1/30/2007 9:32 AM, Blogger Emerging Kurt said...

I guess in my estimation the justification is the lie. And the different set of morals/laws/ethics is an elaborate lie too if they still deny their actions. A "true" set of different morals/laws/ethics would push someone to admit and then argue about the injustices of our society. You will see this with "terrorists" (IRA, Timothy McVey, radical Islamics). So I agree with your statement to a point. The point at which it breaks down, in my estimation, is with children. It is not uncommon to see a bigger child mistreat without provocation a smaller child. You could argue that he mistreats because he is mistreated by another larger than him. I guess this is a "justification" but not a "just" one. How about the car-jacker that steals someones car at gunpoint not even knowing his victim. You can say that this is caused by societal injustices (his justification) but that isn't just either. A husband who beats his wife believes he does it for justifiable reason, but they aren't. So I guess I agree with you, I just don't think peoples justifications make their actions just. They often show that they know that by bragging about their actions to friends and lying about them to me. Also your statement may not hold true in the case of some mentally deranged persons(although I have little experience in that field).
What do you think?

 
At 4/07/2007 8:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Kurt, it has been a while since I have read your blog. I admit it--I'm ready for my punishment. LOL.

Yes, justifying your actions through any means do not always make your actions just. You pointed out examples that clearly outline that. But, it is my belief, that no matter how society, or your neighbor, may view your action, to you your action is not a crime because you have justified it somehow. Just or not... in whose eyes? God? The law? Society? The application of justice (whose justice do we use?) creates the ambiguity you and I are discussing. Do you agree?

 
At 4/07/2007 9:32 AM, Blogger Emerging Kurt said...

I think the majority od sane people in society will agree to what is reasonable and unreasonable behavior in society. Once you try to apply it to them personally they may see it differently though! I think we should apply the justice that we could all agree on when our thinking was detached from a specific situation. That is to say that altering justice in the moment because we don't like how it feels isn't just.
I'm still uncomfortable saying that everyone thinks there actions are just. We have had rashes of kids shooting out windows in cars with B-bguns. They were just being jerks. They didn't know their victims and they didn't think what they were doing was just they were just being @$$holes.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home