A Resolved Dilemma or Vigilante Justice, Take Two
I was in the NY Times!
Read the article here: http://www.uexpress.com/onethics/
For your convenience, I've pasted the text below:
On Ethics
by Randy Cohen
"I found a video camera on the subway. I could not get to lost and found that day, and the manufacturer had no record of the owner. When my mother lost a camera, the finder located her by viewing the pictures. Trying to do the same, I saw that this camera was used to look up women's skirts on the subway. I was shocked! The police said that they couldn't do anything. I don't want to return it to the owner. Should I erase the footage and donate it to a school? -- M.H., New York
----
If you find something likely to harm other people, you should not simply return it. ("Excuse me, sir, did you drop this compact nuclear device?") This camera, used to violate the privacy of women on the subway -- certainly creepy, probably criminal -- falls into that category.
It would be another matter had the camera been used to shoot something erotic and shocking and consensual: You may not thwart what is voluntary and benign. But this up-skirt epic intrudes on the unwary. If the authorities decline to act, as they did, you may seek alternatives.
Here's one approach: Announce your discovery on Craigslist or similar lost-and-found sites: "Found: One video camera used to shoot up women's skirts. Will return to owner, whom I will photograph, posting his picture on this site and on lampposts throughout the city." Then, when the camera's owner fails to step forward (and he won't show up, of course, out of embarrassment), give it to a school.
Not all such public shaming is appropriate. The pillory and stocks are a feature of Colonial Williamsburg, not a modern courtroom. But here there is rough justice in such alternative sentencing.
(Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in The New York Times Magazine.)"
Read the article here: http://www.uexpress.com/onethics/
For your convenience, I've pasted the text below:
On Ethics
by Randy Cohen
"I found a video camera on the subway. I could not get to lost and found that day, and the manufacturer had no record of the owner. When my mother lost a camera, the finder located her by viewing the pictures. Trying to do the same, I saw that this camera was used to look up women's skirts on the subway. I was shocked! The police said that they couldn't do anything. I don't want to return it to the owner. Should I erase the footage and donate it to a school? -- M.H., New York
----
If you find something likely to harm other people, you should not simply return it. ("Excuse me, sir, did you drop this compact nuclear device?") This camera, used to violate the privacy of women on the subway -- certainly creepy, probably criminal -- falls into that category.
It would be another matter had the camera been used to shoot something erotic and shocking and consensual: You may not thwart what is voluntary and benign. But this up-skirt epic intrudes on the unwary. If the authorities decline to act, as they did, you may seek alternatives.
Here's one approach: Announce your discovery on Craigslist or similar lost-and-found sites: "Found: One video camera used to shoot up women's skirts. Will return to owner, whom I will photograph, posting his picture on this site and on lampposts throughout the city." Then, when the camera's owner fails to step forward (and he won't show up, of course, out of embarrassment), give it to a school.
Not all such public shaming is appropriate. The pillory and stocks are a feature of Colonial Williamsburg, not a modern courtroom. But here there is rough justice in such alternative sentencing.
(Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in The New York Times Magazine.)"