Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Cop
AllbuddhaBound
Veteran
Being a policeman is being a crusader for justice and a very honorable job. Definitely right occupation. However, part of the job of doing investigations actually involves lying. Police tell not only suspects lies, but they also tell people around the suspect lies because that is how you can get their cooperation.
Even though policeman would be a right occupation, is telling lies morally correct for a Buddhist cop? And if it is, what if the person they are lying about didn't do the crime? Are they still justified or would they have failed right speech?
0
Comments
Lying creates negative karma, but that does not mean that you can't create positive karma to balance it.
It is like raising animals for consumption. That is negative karma but if you take good care of the animals then that is balanced.
Even though you can offset the bad karma, is it offset if you plan on continuing to lie?
That kind of lying is the least of the transgressions I would worry about with cops today.
Talk about your double-edged sword/catch-22 situation.
Cops become so used to telling lies that they use them for both good and bad/selfish reasons, and then they go crazy and put their service revolvers to their heads.
Well, it depends. Here is a scenario. Lunches at work are going missing. I really suspect Sally. So in order to see how she reacts, I spread a rumor that Sally is known for eating peoples lunches at her last job. Everyone rides Sally at work, shun her and make her feel guilty. She becomes depressed and takes an overdose. Would I have committed a minor transgression?
And I wonder if the innocent people who have been convicted and sit on death row would agree that lying is a minor transgression. Police have lied there many times. So much lying that they refuse to talk to reporters about it.
I agree. There is karma when you conduct yourself that way.
Thats a terrible example. You then start a lie to see how she reacts?
That intention stinks to high heaven.
Cops? Yeah....lying is the least we have to worry about. I fear a legal chokehold, now.
And may i remind you the chokehold incident was all on camera. ....
Sorry but it is what people do all the time.
What about innocent people on deathrow? Lying there by police, is that something we don't need to worry about?
So.....are we discussing lying in general or cops? All things cops do we should worry
About....how? Like i said the latest get out of jail free card was on camera...personal
Choices....re training....what else do u suggest?
If ur interested in the topic....there r a couple books and articles written by buddhist cops..
Ill see if i can find any links for you.....
Is this actually getting you anywhere @AllbuddhaBound ? What's the point of your initial investigation?
The thread has predictably expanded into hypotheticals and discussions relating to current events. Surprise surprise..
Ok, here it is in a nutshell:
Lying is lying.
Lying generates bad Kamma, full stop and end of story. A Buddhist cop shouldn't lie, and if his job means he is placed in a position of having to, then he should seriously consider whether it's a job he can carry on doing.
Just talking about the dilemma. It clearly points our how damaging lying can be under those circumstances. I am saying it just contradicts attitudes where lying is a small thing.
Thanks for looking up the links.
I don't mean to lead this thread astray any, but what about people who are forced to enter at least some incorrect information into their computers just to follow the "no blank spaces and get them filled in by end of shift" protocol? Technically they are being untruthful, but can we do without the nursing profession and such?
I actually have no idea whatsoever, what you're talking about.
@AllbuddhaBound
"For thirteen years I was a law enforcement officer. In the dark humor of that environment, we called ourselves “paid killers for the country.” No one else wanted to be in out boots. I did not identify myself as a Buddhist; I was not aware that the way I behaved and experienced the world fit squarely with the Buddha’s teachings. It is clear to me now that we could have been, and were, instruments of karma. But skillful action, discriminating awareness, karma, the law of causality were not terms in law enforcement basic training.
For a Buddhist in police work, the most important thing is to be constantly aware of ego. It is not your anger, not your revenge, not your judgment, no matter how personal the event. I was paid and trained to take spirit-bruising abuse. I endured things of which the majority of women in America will never even dream. For me it was not judgment, in the Western sense, but discernment. This kept me, and others, alive and healthy. This discernment allowed me to act skillfully in crisis. The law of causality allowed me to know that if I could not stop the perpetrator of violence or pain or loss, that some other vehicle would reach that person—karma."
Here's another one.....
"Career Changer: From Stressed-Out Cop to Buddhist Teacher"
http://www.oprah.com/money/Career-Changer-Cheri-Maples-Cop-Turned-Buddhist-Teacher_1
We did...not too long ago, have a member here that was recently retired from Law Enforcement.....I can't remember his name... * scratches head * .....
Well, the Opening Post does address Lying and untruthfulness. It also speaks of people seeking to work in right manner, but who have to tell some untruths in order to get cooperation from others. The OP mainly deals with the question of Right Speech, as I understand it.
Now documenting things before they happen and things that never happened is saying things that are not true. But in order to keep your job in the nursing field you have to leave no blank spaces, and if you put in the truth in every instance, you lose your job and will no longer be able to function in your area of expertise, your "right livelihood." The fact that you are very unlikely to be causing significant harm to your patients, though, I'd think would be a mitigating factor. And, of course, with computerization, things have to be documented mostly within rather narrow time periods.
So also, as to the policing matter, you'd probably think that as long as no significant harm was being done, it would have to be understood that standards of absolutely strict Right Speech ought not to be applicable to police agents in the course of their policing and detecting. However, in circumstances where he's exercising deception, the Buddhist policeman should still follow some basic principles of Right Speech, such as not insulting people or calling them names or not making false promises to them. (That is, if circumstances permit civilized talk. But not making false promises is a given demand of Right Speech, I'd think.)
I really have a problem with the mentality that there either is or has got to be some kind of eternal karmic retribution mechanism that sticks like everlasting mud to all creatures. I do not think the Universe is ALL ABOUT anything. It just is; and all shall be forgiven! For all Is For-Given (given forth) for all. Teachings about karma and the Eightfold Path were made for humankind, not humankind for them.
Are you considering a career in law enforcement?
Generally, one should avoid lying. Though it could be argued that in the situation you outlined, it's ok to lie, because it's for the greater good of getting criminals off the street. The problem is, cops get used to lying. They lie even when they don't have to. They develop a very casual relationship with the truth. So I wouldn't recommend it, unless someone were able to maintain a sense of integrity, and were very conscientious.
Yes it is still offset.
@Vastmind - that first cop story made me so sad ... and then my second thought was, was the story true - it sure seemed genuine, but that's the price police pay is people just don't trust them, all too often.
And then I start thinking about parents and teachers who lie or lack character -- people aren't going to come to them when they need help because they figure they aren't trustworthy and don't have much at all in the way of discernment. Incredibly sad to think of all the tragedies that could have been prevented if only we could trust one another a little more.
Message from Dharma Police:
There is no SANTA. Please disperse quietly.
OK I lied. There is a Santa . . .
. . . and now back to wandering around in circles . . .
Well, it depends. Here is a scenario. Lunches at work are going missing. I really suspect Sally. So in order to see how she reacts, I spread a rumor that Sally is known for eating peoples lunches at her last job. Everyone rides Sally at work, shun her and make her feel guilty. She becomes depressed and takes an overdose. Would I have committed a minor transgression?
Spreading a rumor like that, no matter why or what comes of it, is disgusting.
What about this scenario reminds you of what a police officer might need to do to solve a case? A 12 year old brat might consider spreading rumors 'effective' to stop a lunch thief, so I'm not seeing how this is comparable to maneuvers a police person would make. I know I'm taking your example at face value. And maybe you wish you'd come up with a better example, that's understandable.
The Buddha and all his best followers are human beings trying to cope in samsara. The Buddha was asked for advice from a very unscrupulous king (sorry, in the Pali canon somewhere). His 'honest' answer would have gotten him into hot water, been interpreted as hostile by this king. The Buddha had to be VERY circumspect to respond skillfully. There's probably no 'one way' to remain skillful when telling the flat out truth will cause more problems than you already have. Each incident would have to be judged carefully on its own. The Buddha had to be on his toes a lot more than any of us can imagine, he saw more than any of us here can conceive of, in terms of dependent origination. It's why he seemed to utter nonsequitors. Without his awakening to a much greater context it's hard to understand what he said much less why.
So this question you ask isn't a good question (no biggie) at all, because it doesn't address what is really going on when the truth isn't being told flat out.
Think of how often suspects don't even make it to court alive. With no benefit of a trial at all.
But, once again, you either take a statement as being either/or, rather than the truth being something that is a mixture.
Who is saying we don't have to worry about that...too.
It's not an either/or world out there.
@Hamsaka, it really does happen.
"Mitchell sat in front of his counsel as Price told Mr Justice Mitting, who is hearing the case in London without a jury, that what the MP was alleged to have said was a “gross caricature of an attitude of mind which has been out of date for decades”. He said the detail of the encounter that was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers was “wholly false”.
“This web of lies, deceit and indiscipline, and by police officers, led to Mitchell and his family being subjected to an extremely unpleasant, indeed vitriolic, press campaign and a good deal of hostility from the public who believed what they had read in the press. It also placed him in a position where he required considerable determination and, above all, confidence in the rightness of his position, to stand by his account of events,” Price said."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/17/plebgate-police-lies-court-andrew-mitchell
Anybody here living a lie free life?
The karmic consequences of our lies come to roost regardless of our livelihood or our justifications for lying.
It is either..
suck it up, as a lying buttercup, and accept those karmic consequences as an acceptable trade off
or
foster a higher value on being truthful than whatever justification we come up with for lying.
@AllBuddhaBound; I KNOW it happens, but I thought you were asking questions about how a Buddhist would abide by precepts and still do their job as a cop. Now I'm confused about what you are really asking too.
I think it's simple as @How put it. What you say is grounded in what you think and feel. What you think and feel is the source. If your thinking gets you into really stupid places, what you say will only follow. Imagine the Buddha as a cop. I'll bet he could get liars to sing like canaries, without some stupid lie like you mention above.
What difference does it make if our words be honest if the ears they fall on are dishonest? Or what's the big deal if it's just about convenience or filling up space with useless information?
Surely it must be the intent to deceive sincere seekers of the truth that makes what words we pronounce a lie, not just non-factualness. Facts can always be skewed, even in the act of careful observing. Not every account needs to be grudgingly accurate. Sometimes people deserve to be misled. Sometimes, indeed, they need to be misled to avert a greater evil.
I think Right Speech is primarily about the Intent. The intent might not be pure; few things are; but so long as the intent is not impure, we can skid by somehow. Furthermore, Right Speech is not so much for others as it is for us to hone our own compassion and sensitivity to how others suffer.
I don't give a damn about karma, per se. I just care about doing my best to do the right thing and to be loving and kind and helpful. We human beings exist for each other and we are here to bring joy, not sorrow, to each other. With love for my fellows and with hope for bright days and with Faith in the divine love, I need not worry about how many karma-calories are in each bite that I take. (These three, Faith, Hope, and Charity, the "Theological Virtues," abide).
These three virtues abide, the rest is vanity. Thus saith Solomon.
The approach suggested by many here, are called situational ethics. Situational ethics have been described in the following way:
"By the 1970s, situation ethics had been roundly rejected as no ethics at all...
Daniel Callahan, Universalism & Particularism, The Hastings Center Report, 2000"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/situation_1.shtml
This article explains very well what problems result when situational ethics are applied. These ethics are pretty much the exact opposite of Buddhist ethics.
Funny, I would see it just the opposite.
@AllbuddhaBound: I don't quite see what point you're trying to make here.
Good cop / Bad cop?
What about Buddhist attorneys, a Buddhist Judge, Buddhist doctors, Buddhist teachers?
What profession makes lying better to a Buddhist person?
I mean, the example you cited above is an event that can happen in any workplace in any part of the world anytime, not something specific to the police scenario.
And if Sally becomes depressed and takes an overdose, sorry but she should know better than that. There are other solutions to the predicament.
There are areas and moments in our life when all of us have seen our pledge to the Buddhist precepts compromised.
A lie is a lie. Or maybe "fib" makes it sound better when we have no choice but lie?
We'd be so lucky if all situations in life fell under a black and white heading!
What do we do with the grey areas?
Just saw this article written by Lodro about the recent police situations....
There are ways for our officers (and leaders in general) to learn to connect to others from a place of empathy and compassion, rather than letting their fixed ideas of a situation run the show. If compassion training was introduced into our police departments we might see a societal shift away from excessive use of force and toward a deeper understanding of what it means to defend the common good, one based in the belief that every individual in society is, in fact, basically good. Until then, my heart continues to break.
The full article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lodro-rinzler/the-nypd-needs-training-i_b_6269530.html
@AllbuddhaBound, I never did get those who complained about "Situation Ethics." To me, all true ethics are situation-based. In fact, the great Hindu ethical imperative, "Above all, Do no Harm," would have us be more circumspect in all our dealings. It's impossible to do absolutely no harm, so the Hindu ethical imperative would have us do the lesser that the situation opened up before us.
Ethics are based on values and are not adherence to any rigid set of codes. Ethics are not an ideology or a parallel to another kind of Shariah! They are the basis from which we ground our actions. They are not a stricture within whose lines we must never stray, but are really freer, more joyful and true —based on goodwill to all, if they be genuine. The old "situation" where you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi-occupied Europe: Do you answer truthfully when asked by the Gestapo? To tell a lie here really does transcend anybody's "Brand-name" of ethics, I daresay.
The fact remains, that different standards of veracity do apply to people having "work to do" in sensitive areas. That is due simply to the nature of the Beast: there's a lot of meanness and chaos out there. But that is not to say that we should not teach our children to be non-duplicitous and genuine in their words and actions —and that that truthfulness is perhaps the Best part of human character.
@Vastmind, I remember studying the ethics of the 1940s Philadelphia police in a manicures in college. I sure wish I still had one of those books! AnyWho, one author revealed that the police were pressured to make so many vice arrests a month in order to prove that they were not corrupt. But the book I'd like to see again actually broke police behavior down into attitude/belief attributes of the police officer. There was the type who basically believed people were to be punished, and he was labelled the Enforcer. I forget the labels for the other three types. However, there was the kind of officer who believed people were basically good. Forgive my rambling, but I guess you just can't take the little boy out of the cop —but you might could train them better. ???
Manicures in college: OH Minicourse. At least NewBuddhist's spellcheck doesn't turn my "its" into "it's," as does my annoying iPad! I hate sounding stupid more than laughing at the embarrassment of flamboyant manicures.
It's = it has, it was, it is
Its= possessive pronoun
I think the answer is quite obvious.
I think it is presumptuous to say that being a policeman is being a crusader for justice. In an ideal world, that is what policemen would do. The truth is that many policemen are angry, controlling, power-hungry people. They are hired by their police department to enforce laws which are not necessarily moral nor ethical.
Having an honorable job as a policeman is two parts of a whole. Being a policeman. And being honorable. A policeman who behaves skillfully is an honorable policeman, and is upholding the 8fold tenant of right occupation. A policeman who does not behave skillfully is not upholding right occupation.
well said @thegoldeneternity.
It is not the job but the attitude and implementation . . .
These bad boys and gals were mahasiddhas of the dharma . . .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha
Never judge a policewoman by her truncheon.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-on-the-scrap-heap-the-effect-of-the-job-on-mental-health-20141201-11wn1j.html
I still don't see why lying would be a job requirement for cops. I'd think the dilemma would be more arresting people and maybe destroying their lives when they're either innocent or it's a law you don't believe is fair.
Oh, there would be pressure on you from your fellow cops to lie. Cops lie on their reports and even in courts all the time, it seems. The cops who resist this might find their career in trouble. But the job actually calls for cops being truthful and that's a failing of the system.
People also think being in sales means you have to know how to lie to the client or customer. There's the stereotype of the smarmy used car salesman telling you that piece of junk sitting on the lot is the best car he's got and he's losing money at that price. But I work around salespeople and the ones that are successful value the trust that comes with being truthful. I suppose it's the same with cops. The bully who lies to arrest someone because he loves to exercise this ego has to exist, but I'd think the better cop is just trying to make it through the day without having to draw his gun.