| | NEGATIVE INCENTIVES INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED "SNITCHING"
INTRO |
|
<
< | I am much more concerned about the loss of life to drugs and to the crime that's going on out there and the need to stop it and protect our innocents and our citizens than I am about anybody's concern over informants. Good Lord. Informants are the way of life in American justice, whether it's a drug issue or not. It's part of our judicial system. It's a good system, if it's run properly.
Rep. Bill McCollum (Republican Congressman from Florida's Fifth District. He is
Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee
) |
| | |
|
>
> | What if the system isn’t run properly? What if the use of informants by police is not as well regulated as it could be? |
| | |
|
<
< | McCollum hasn't been
in Congress since 2000. He holds no elective office, having last
been defeated by Mel Martinez in the Florida Republican Senate
Primary in 2010. Who cares what he said once?
What if the system isn’t run properly? What if there is very poor oversight of informants? |
>
> | Within the widespread use of informants in criminal cases, law enforcement officials and prosecutors are the facilitators of the system. Law enforcement officials and prosecutors maintain files on informants and coordinate deals with possible cooperators. Therefore, these authorities have the responsibility to make sure that the use of informants does not become an injustice to those facing criminal charges. In United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1993), a man appealed his conviction on charges of conspiracy to posses a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, as well as aiding and abetting charges. The court's opinion describes the important responsibility that prosecutors have in dealing with rewarded criminals, stating "A prosecutor who does not appreciate the perils of using rewarded criminals as witnesses risks compromising the truth-seeking mission of our criminal justice system. Because the Government decides whether and when to use such witnesses, and what, if anything, to give them for their service, the Government stands uniquely positioned to guard against perfidy. By its action the Government can either contribute to or eliminate the problem. Accordingly, we expect prosecutors and investigators to take all reasonable measures to safeguard the system against treachery. Id. at 333-34. The Ninth circuit is correct in identifying prosecutors and investigators as the those in the best position to make sure that the witnesses they use are credible. |
| | |
|
<
< | One doesn't "oversee"
informants. One uses them. The purpose of informants is to produce
information, not evidence. |
| | |
|
<
< | What if there are tremendous incentives and pressures that cause both criminals, as well as law enforcement personnel to exploit the system for their own personal benefit? |
>
> | But what if there are tremendous incentives and pressures that cause both criminals, as well as law enforcement personnel to misuse the system for their own personal benefit? |
| |
Of course there are. |
| | in information didn't exist?
|
|
<
< | In many instances, informants in criminal cases don’t offer law enforcement personnel information against other criminals out of the goodness of their own hearts. Rather, they strike deals with law enforcement to provide information about other criminals, usually in return for reduced prison sentences. They offer substantial information as “credible sources” to aid authorities in the arrest and conviction of others. Ironically, the same individuals whom the federal government doesn’t believe are telling the truth about their own criminal activities are set forth as valuable, trustworthy sources in stories regarding other people’s criminal activities. The negative incentives flow both ways. Criminals are given an incentive to make up information regarding others for their own personal gain and law enforcement officials have the incentive to use these “trustworthy” sources to bolster their cases against other individuals and keep conviction rates high. |
>
> | In many instances, informants in criminal cases don’t offer law enforcement personnel information against other criminals out of the goodness of their own hearts. Rather, they strike deals with law enforcement to provide information about other criminals, usually in return for reduced prison sentences. They offer substantial information as “credible sources” to aid authorities in the arrest and conviction of others. Ironically, the same individuals whom the federal government doesn’t believe are telling the truth about their own criminal activities are set forth as valuable, trustworthy sources in stories regarding other people’s criminal activities. The negative incentives flow both ways. Criminals are given an incentive to make up information regarding others for their own personal gain and law enforcement officials have the incentive to use these “trustworthy” sources to bolster their cases against other individuals and keep conviction rates high and sentences long. |
| |
|
| | Conclusion
As outsiders looking into the system (or even as prosecutors within the system) it is easy to feel as if this type of system isn’t such a bad idea. Maybe some individuals are even largely unaware that the “snitching” marketplace exists. Unfortunately, those who suffer because of this poorly operated system don’t have the luxury of being unaware of the system. Innocense Project. Another attempt to justify the status quo in society’s current system is to write the occurrence of false testimony as something that can’t be fixed or that doesn’t happen that often, although organization such as the Innocence project might have a different perception of reality. |
|
<
< | No criminal punishment system is perfect. Even still, to turn a blind eye to the injustice that is prevalent in the criminal justice system’s use of informants is disgraceful. To say that using these informants “gets the job done” is to say that individuals are not truly innocent before proven guilty. |
>
> | No criminal punishment system is perfect. Even still, to turn a blind eye to the injustice that is prevalent in the criminal justice system’s use of informants is disgraceful. . The reality is that it would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water and completely eliminate the use of testimony from criminals and paid police informants. Many cases are solved using these witnesses in a way that preserves justice and allows for a fair process for those facing criminal charges. What must be considered is a system better regulated and more efficient at ensuring that the information provided by witnesses and informants are not lies, created to to serve the interests of prosecutors and criminals. |
| |
|