Case LXII: Throwing Suspicion on Some One Else

Colius has, in a fit of jealousy, murdered a young man, and in order to divert suspicion from himself, has left in the neighborhood of the corpse the hat and knife of his friend Florus, who had been living in enmity with the murdered man. The police discovered these articles and arrested Florus. The latter is finally found guilty and sentenced to death. Then Colius, in troubled conscience, hastens to his confessor, Father Clemens, who absolves him without hesitation, with the remark that no one is obliged to accuse himself. With little faith in this explanation Colius turned to another confessor, Father Severus. This priest refused absolution until Colius would, even with danger to his own life, free by self-accusation the innocent Florus from his unfortunate position. Colius is now perplexed. Which confessor must be obeyed, and why?

1. In the case of Colius there are present all conditions that establish the strict obligation of restitution. He is guilty of having caused the misfortune of Florus. The remarks of the first confessor that no one is obliged to accuse himself is, in this sense, and especially in application to this case, palpably incorrect. If there is merely question of one’s own punishment, then it is true that no one is obliged to accuse himself. If, on the contrary, self-accusation is the necessary and only adequate means to make good a wrong committed, such as in our case, then it may become a strict obligation.

2. With far more apparent justification it might be said that Colius, by depositing hat and knife of his friend, became merely the occasion (occasio), but not actually the cause (causa efficiens) of the latter’s conviction. Lehmkuhl says (Theol. mor. I. 997): If someone by positive fraud turns suspicion of a crime upon another, it must be considered whether that fraud could reasonably have moved them to regard and punish the other as guilty. If it did, the arousing of suspicion was the effective cause of the harm; but if others rashly condemned the other person, we have only an occasion of the harm.

Then he cites the case of a thief who throws some of the stolen coins before the door of another, who finds the same, takes them, and in the subsequent investigation is held and punished as the thief. In this case, the author explains, the real thief’s action is merely the occasio, not the causa efficiens of the resulting conviction. And rightly so, for although I may possess coins that another has stolen, there is no sufficient reason to hold me as the thief. I may have obtained possession of these coins in a perfectly innocent way. How, then, about Colius’s action? He left hat and knife of Florus beside the murdered man. Was the presence of these articles near the corpse sufficient reason for considering Florus to be the perpetrator, and to condemn him to death? One may doubt this. The possibility of the true state of facts will not be overlooked by a deliberate judge, because the trick of throwing suspicion upon others is not unusual with criminals, and Florus will certainly have stated that hat and knife had been stolen from him. If it is remembered that Florus had lived in enmity with the murdered man, the presence of these articles might well lead to a verdict of guilty against Florus, without justifying a charge of bias against jury or judge. Colius, while not responsible for the additional motive for suspicion, has nevertheless made use of it intentionally, to divert more surely suspicion from himself; he knew that because of this circumstance his act could more surely draw down upon Florus bad results. He who gives to a sick person a poison that would not kill a healthy person, is guilty of murder nevertheless, if he knew beforehand the fatal effects of the poison, and yet gave it.

Colius could and did know that by leaving hat and knife of a man who had lived at enmity with the murdered man he might easily bring about his conviction. Hence he is all the more the moral cause of it, and is obliged to avert the threatened danger from Florus, even though he must assume it himself. Colius was conscious of this heavy responsibility; for this reason he was not satisfied with the decision of the first confessor. For this reason also it will be relatively easy to induce him to the actual fulfilment of his duty. It is not necessary that Colius should give himself up and expose himself to punishment; it suffices if he declares the matter before competent, credible witnesses, and lets them take further action while he puts his own person in safety. Jacob Linden, S.J.