I'm not a typical letter writer/ranter, but I have just finished listening to the podcast of today's episode of The Ethicist, and I am so thoroughly appalled that I can't seem to stop myself.

In his podcast released on December 1st, 2006, your "ethicist", Randy Cohen, suggests that a technician who found child pornography on his boss's computer is ethically required to stay silent. Mr. Cohen states that reporting the crime isn't worth the trouble because the boss may have legal pictures of adults who look like children, might not have downloaded the pornography himself, and could be convicted of a crime if the technician told.

Wow. Just wow.

First of all, if the boss's porn is legal (meaning, adult) let me on behalf of all workers everywhere release a big, "Blech." Legal, adult porn at home is nobody else's business; legal, adult porn at work means that someone is seriously overpaid.

Second, if the man is innocent by the letter of the law, then that can be proven. If someone else downloaded the material - doubtful, but I'll suspend my disbelief if you will - there will be a time and date stamp on the files, and if he wasn't in his office at that time, then hey, dig that alibi.

Third, Mr. Cohen makes the argument that this boss could go to jail for a long time if convicted. And, if convicted, I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Perhaps Mr. Cohen would like to elaborate on why it's better - nay, more ethical even - to let a guilty (conviction presumes guilt) pedophile roam the streets than spend time in jail? I'm not talking about a witch-hunt here - I'm talking about a man who was proven guilty in a court of law. I know our legal system isn't perfect, but I was under the impression that the guilty should go to prison. Apparently, your "ethicist" would disagree when it comes to pedophiles. Color me fascinated.

Last, the very idea that this "ethicist" would place the boss's potential embarrassment above the welfare of sexually exploited children is so far beyond the pale that I literally can't believe what I'm hearing. I am partially hoping that I've had some sort of auditory psychotic break, and imagined the whole thing. If I have, please direct me to the transcript so I can see that your ethicist actually has... you know... ethics. Can he seriously be suggesting that, on the off chance this guy *might* be innocent, this worker is ethically required to *ignore* this reprehensible and dangerous behavior?

That technician not only should report the boss, he has a moral obligation to do so. If the boss is innocent, then let him prove it. If he's not, then it's likely that he's exploiting other opportunities to be around children, and this technician is allowing those children to be at risk by not saying anything. What kind of "ethicist" would possibly put damage to someone's reputation above the welfare of children? I cannot believe Mr. Cohen said it, and even more, I can't believe the New York Times let him.

Sincerely,