| | | OK, I'll try to answer your question, though difficult it may be.
… do we think that a company has a right to shield a known criminal from the law?
No, we don't think that. We think that law trumps circumstance.
You're alone and hungry. A smaller person walks by eating a sandwich. Do you take the sandwich because the person is smaller than you? Of course not. That would be morally wrong as well as against the law. But, suppose you are a cop and you are in pursuit of a criminal. Would you then be justified to take the sandwich, because it might help your stamina and thereby catch the criminal?
No. Police are supposed to obey the law as well. Catching the criminal is not the highest order of priority. Following the law is.
If we were living in the Russia, the police could do what ever they deem necessary, which seems to be what you are advocating our accepting in this case.
As to the rest of your argument… If the person with the sandwich volunteers the sandwich, that's his or her choice. In Apple vs FBI, the FBI is breaking the law in compelling (with the full weight and authority of the courts) actions and burdens not being offered willingly. Plus! And this is the big one. There is a specific law that forbids that. |
|
