Advice needed on cheating

[SeattlePioneer 144]

<

 

Stosh>>

 

 

Courts usually desire and often insist upon the highest quality kinds of evidence in a trial, particularly a criminal trial.

 

For example, a copy of a record is usually not acceptabole as evidence. The actual record itself must usually be produced to use as evidence.

 

 

In a trial therefore, having someone testify about what someone else told them is poor quality evidence compared with having that person testify themself about what they were told.

 

But when one is investigating a possible problem, hearsay may be quite useful. You can always get higher quality kinds of evidence at a later time to improve a case.

 

Anyway, that's my understanding as a non lawyer. I think the legal rules of evidence are interesting, even though they can often be rather arcane. If they weren't, who'd need lawyers?

[Stosh 3452]

I wasn't referring to US legal code, I was referring to: "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

 

Unless one knows for sure what a true witness to an event is, it's better to not lower oneself down to the level of the cheater by repeating hearsay and gossip.

 

I wouldn't want to offer up a suggestion that inspires a thread on this forum about what does one do when they have proof that a scout is participating in inappropriate hearsay and gossip about another scout.

 

So I'll stick with my original advice. If one doesn't know all the facts first hand, don't worry about it.

 

Stosh

[CherokeeScouter 32]

What a good teachable moment for both you and your son. And the SM and the offending party.

 

I took the road less traveled - I worked my butt off for both my Eagle and my college degree - and I think it has made a difference. I'm sure I've met cheaters who took the easy way to both Eagle and a degree, but that's their burden. I also don't cheat others in business as an adult and I sleep well at nite.

 

As far as how to handle the cheating Scout, I think you - not your son - should approach the SM and say something along the lines of "Jimmy has been bragging to others about how he took some shortcuts on some merit badges. You may want to talk to him about it." Then you've done your job. You and your son should do no more. Keep it short and sweet and then leave it alone. Tell your son to do the same.

 

Then, if I were the SM, I would pull Jimmy aside or address it in a SM conference. And my script would be something like this: "Jimmy, it's going around that you were bragging to others about taking some shortcuts on some merit badges. Now, I have no idea if this is true or not because I didn't hear you say it. But we need to talk a little bit about the problems with taking shortcuts....." Then I would talk to Jimmy in general about the problems that lying and cheating cause, not just in Scouting but in life."

 

That's a conversation you can defend to anyone, including Jimmy's parents.

 

That is providing leadership and a moral compass. That's really the most you can do. The rank, at least up until this point, has been earned, and, as others have pointed out, you are operating on hearsay. But don't fall back on hearsay as a reason not to address it. Hearsay doesn't mean you can't talk about things.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

<

 

Unless one knows for sure what a true witness to an event is, it's better to not lower oneself down to the level of the cheater by repeating hearsay and gossip.

>>

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't agree. I think you misinterpret the biblical quotation, when refers to lying as a witness, in my opinion.

 

I think your standard is unreasonably high. A lower standard would allow POSSIBLE bad behavior to be investigated, and for facts to be accumulated about what happened.

 

There a big difference between the standard of evidence need to justify making a complaint and making a final determination that someone has behaved badly.

 

This is reflected in criminal law by the low standard of "reasonable suspicion" which allows the police to begin an investigation, the higher standard of "probable cause" which allows the police to arrest someone, and the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict someone of a crime.

 

 

While we aren't bound by the standards in criminal law, having a lower standard to justify opening an investigation of possible bad behavior makes good sense, in my opinion.

 

 

 

[koolaidman 110]

recently' date=' he bragged to a few boys, [b']including my son[/b],

(emphasis added)

 

OP's son is reporting what he heard the alleged offender say. It is not hearsay, since both accused and accuser can bear witness in "court".

 

I think it is splitting hairs anyway. We are not the US legal system. The SM is well within his rights to simply have a conference with the scout. We're not talking about ripping patches off a shirt after all. Once it's signed off on, its done.

 

The SM has a duty to vet MBCs. He should look into allegations of MBCs cutting corners.

 

OP: Ask your son what he thinks of it and what he should do. His conscience will guide him and you can support him and help him discover what he thinks he needs to do. As long as there are no broad-side accusations in front of the full troop, I say let the scout determine what best to do.