The Paradox of Justice and Guilt

In each of us lies a multifaceted nature capable of explaining the most enigmatic contradictions. Occasionally, individuals who commit illicit acts attempt to demonstrate external righteousness by actively participating in exposing criminals. This occurs as an internal struggle between the reluctance to acknowledge one’s own guilt and the desire to maintain an image of moral authority, transforming into self-defensive rhetoric and the illusion of pure justice.

Deep internal contradictions lead those who assist criminals with advice or support to often act not out of coercion, but from personal malice or a desire for personal gain. Such actions serve as a vivid example of how the pursuit of personal advantage and the desire to appear above reproach can mask the true nature of the offenses committed.

At the same time, this phenomenon reveals the general involvement of all members of society in processes where responsibility for crime is collectively distributed. The notion that everyone in this system bears a share of the blame compels us to reflect on how deeply personal ambitions and societal myths of justice are woven into our consciousness. Ultimately, this complex situation results in constant internal tension, where the demonstration of righteousness helps mitigate the awareness of one’s own role in the wrongdoing, thereby fostering a persistent delusion of the system’s innocence.

Why do people often contribute to the search for criminals even if they themselves commit unlawful acts?

The answer can be explained by a complex combination of inner contradictions, the desire to maintain an outwardly “correct” appearance, and an effort to distance oneself from guilt. In other words, even if an individual commits illegal acts, they may actively participate in exposing criminals, seeking to create the appearance of objectivity or moral superiority. This enables them, on one hand, to justify their actions through self-defensive rhetoric and, on the other, to maintain the illusion that the justice system remains untainted despite their own involvement in violations.

This stance is also reflected in discussions that emphasize that those who facilitate criminal activity (i.e., those who assist or offer advice to criminals) act solely out of malice and personal interest, rather than under any form of compulsion. As one source states, “Those considered as facilitating should be understood as those who help during the actual act of abduction, while those who conspire — who do not physically help, but offer advice and show care, thereby aiding the perpetrator and shielding them. For he who abducts his wife has a love that incites him to this unlawful act. But he who facilitates, or conspires, is far less excusable, for there is nothing that compels him to such wicked behavior except his own malice…” (source: link txt).

Furthermore, another part of the material underlines the overall involvement of all society members in such processes: “Of course, we are all to blame in this… Therefore, we are all guilty in this…” (source: link txt). This statement reflects the idea that even people participating in criminal acts can justify their behavior by contributing to the exposure of criminals, thus creating an effect of collective redistribution of guilt.

Thus, one can say that the act of contributing to the search for criminals by those who themselves break the law is a manifestation of deep psychological contradictions, where an outward display of “rightness” serves to conceal or mitigate their own culpability.

Supporting citation(s):
“By punishing those who abduct with ostracism, the rule subjects the facilitators and the conspirators to the same punishment: ‘Those considered as facilitating should be understood as those who help during the act of abduction, while those who conspire are those who do not physically help, but offer advice and show care, thus aiding the perpetrator and protecting them. For he who abducts his wife has a love that incites him to this lawless act. But he who facilitates, or conspires, is far less excusable, for there is nothing that compels him to such ungodly behavior except his own malice…’” (source: link txt)

“— Of course, we are all to blame in this… Therefore, we are all guilty in this…” (source: link txt)