My Homework Assignment 4/21/2009

U.S. vs Matthew is the case where ex-priest Matthew Bagert plead guilty to illegally downloading four pornographic photos of underage boys. When he  was first charged back in 2005. However, the case was dropped in 2006 after the claim that the two priests who originally found the photos, had entered into Bagert’s computer illegally. Two years later, the case was turned over, and Bagert now faces up to 10 years in jail and $250,000 fine. Now, amongst all of this riff-raff remains an ethical question: even though the two priests entered into Bagerts quarters and  searched his computer illegally, is it still okay because of the fact that they found dangerous material? Was it okay for them to break the law in order to report something illegal? My response is, yes. ESPECIALLY in this situation when children were involved. It is reported that Bagert did no harm, sexually, to any child. However, he still condoned a dangerous act towards children by downloading the material. NO laws in the world should stop someone from protecting a child, even if it includes killing someone. Would this same question be asked, say, almost 9 years ago, if someone had “illegally” searched  Mohammad Atta’s computer to find the plans for the attacks against America? No. In fact, that probably could have prevented that tragic day. Would the question been asked if another student at Virginia Tech had “illegally” searched the computer of Seung-Hui  Cho, and possibly found the plans for the attacks on the college campus? No. Another question asked was, would this have mattered if the two priests found adult pornography on the computer? In that case, I think that they would have been brought to trial for illegally searching his computer. BUT (there is a big but), I believe that the damages would have still been against Bagert. Once the news got out that a priest was watching pornography, even with it being adult, members of the church more than likely would have left and protested that particular church.