How about being machmir on ben adam l'chaveiro?

Avram,

1. I was referring to people in the Coffee Room. However, b’toch ami ani yoshev. One common instance is people, being that you mentioned children, is men who must look after very small children who are incapable of sitting quietly. They do not realize that at that time it is prohibited for them to daven in shul (Mishna Beura 98:3). In fact, they think that they are being machmir on tefilla b’tzibbor.

2. When I go into a store to browse I try to avoid the salespeople and i one approaches me I state explicitly that I just want to look. I also lug groceries home even though I was told (not by the owner) that people can take wagons home so long as they return them.

Nishtdayngesheft, an auditor could also figure it out.

Joseph, here is the exact language of the Shulchan Aruch as well as Rav Schachter’s opinion:

??? ????? ???? ????”? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?’ ?? ?? ???? ?? (????? ??):

Regarding Mesirah by Rav Herschel Schachter

The prohibition of mesirah is well known among religious Jews. The severity of this issur becomes ever so clear when we read in Shulchan Aruch that a mosser is dino ke’akum with respect to writing a sefer Torah (Yoreh Deah 281:3) and with respect to shechitah ( Remah ibid 2:9). Even if the mosser is otherwise an observant individual, and is meticulous in fulfilling his religious duties, because he demonstrates his rejection of the unity of all of Klal Yisroel (by his act of mesirah), he is treated as an akum (see Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva 3:11 and Nefesh Horav pg. 235).

If, however, one is guilty of a crime, and according to the law of the land deserves a prison sentence, or will be put to death, even though according to Jewish law his punishment would not be as severe, this is not mesirah (see Ritva to Bava Metsia 83b; Dvar Avraham vol. I pg. 8). One would still not be allowed to hand this individual over to the civil authorities because this is the equivalent of returning aveidas akum, which is usually not allowed. In an instance of avoiding a chilul Hashem, just like we would be obligated to return the aveidas akum, so too we would be obligated to hand over this individual (see Rama, Choshen Mishpat 388:12).

If the non-Jewish governmental authorities know that one Jew is concealing information about another Jew in order to save him from punishment, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:3) considers this a situation of chilul Hashem. Similarly, for many generations it was the practice that if a gneiva had occurred, and suspicion had fallen on the Jewish community, rather than allow that suspicion to hover over the entire community, the roshei hakehol, with the permission of the rabbonim, would inform the non-Jewish authorities who might possibly be the real ganav (Be’er Hagola, Choshen Mishpat 388:12).

Even if one is guilty of a crime and deserves a punishment according to the laws of the land, but due to anti-semetic attitudes he will probably suffer more than if he were a non-Jew; or, the (state) prison conditions are such that he will suffer at the hands of the other inmates (or at the hands of the guards) in a manner that is not proscribed by law, then turning the offender in would constitute mesirah, since his added suffering will be shelo kadin. However, mesirah is permitted in situations where one is a public menace (see Shach to Choshen Mishpat 388, 59), or if one is physically or psychologically harming another individual (for example, in instances of sexual abuse of children, students, campers etc., or spousal abuse) (see Shach to Choshen Mishpat ibid, 45).

The Jewish community does not have the ability to investigate these types of cases. Wherever there are raglayim ladavar that there seems to be a problem, the proper government agencies should be contacted to investigate.

Just as in other areas of halachah, one should consult a competent moreh horaah when faced with such a shayla. Just because one is knowledgeable in Yoreh Deah vol. I or one delivers a good pilpul shiur on sugyos in Nashim or Nezikin, it does not necessarily follow that that individual will be qualified to pasken on hilchos mesirah – lehakel or lehachmir.

[end of article]

Rav Moshe was talking about a situation where the secular authorities did not know that a crime had been committed and the perp was not a danger to the community. In such a case there is no duty to report the crime in secular law. It should also be noted that in the case of kashrut fraud supervisory organizations do use secular law to protect the integrity of their symbols. {end of Rav Schachter’s opinion]

IMHO, if a person would go to prison it is triply prohibited to refuse to testify as he is putting himself in danger, causing harm to his family as they will not have a source of parnassa. This is an example of a chassid shel shetut.

On the contrary, Joseph. If someone is a habitual criminal he is a danger to the community. Today victimology has progressed to the point where we know the traumatic effects even of crimes which in the past were considered non-violent such as burglary. A British victim support group found that “One in four burglary victims say they experienced mental health issues after a break-in, such as increased anxiety or symptoms of depression, according to new research from Victim Support and home security specialist ADT.

The study of 1,000 burglary victims, conducted to find out the real impact of the crime as part of the Take No More campaign, also revealed that one in four adults felt their ability to keep their family safe was affected by a break-in.”

IMHO, if Rav Moshe had known about this he would have ruled that a burglar, as well as other types of thieves and certainly robbers, has the din of a rodef of the community and that it is davka a mitzva to report him.

As for incarceration as a punishment, this is within the rights of the secular authorities t impose exta-halchic punishments in order to maintain public order (see Rambam Hilchot Melachim ch. 3 and Ran Derasha 11). One can agreee or disagree but it is their right.

Regarding modern Western countries, there are poskim, such as the Aruch HaShulchan, Rav Wosner, the Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Eliashiv (see the on-line article “Informing on Others for Violating American Law: A Jewish Law View for the citations) who do differentiate.