Asymmetrical Information

Snitching undermines these important goals by setting criminals loose

Huh?

Clarifying my "huh?", I understand that turning states evidence can result in a criminal walking, but presumably the proescutors/cops are only willing to do this when there is a bigger fish to fry than the snitch himself.

Thus snitching should result in a net decrease in crime.

The "failed public policy" mentioned in the article should refer to the "War on Drugs" not snitching. I've had cops admit to me that decriminalizing drugs would improve the lives of the vast majority of poor people who are trapped in the neighborhoods where drug dealing is the main industry.

If you are reading this comment, ask yourself:

"Have I voted today for Asymmetrical Information as Best Business Blog?" (The Club for Growth is more than 100 votes ahead.)

Go to:
(http://weblogawards.org/2005/12/best_business_blog.php)

Did you remember to vote yesterday? If not, consider voting once at work and then again at home. And don't forget to vote tomorrow and Thursday, too.

I'd be willing to acccept the author's suggestions regarding encouraging greater criminal loyalty. Of course, I'd condition my agreement on a rather minor proviso - nothing, really. Ms. Natapoff would have to agree that in no future criminal investigation in which she is the victim can evidence obtained from an informer ever be admissable. Of course, this fact would be be broadcast publicly throughout Los Angeles.

Call me heartless, but I don't feel like fostering stronger bonds between criminals should be a goal of our nation's policy.

Call me sarcastic, but I think you should demand a refund for those "speed-reading with no comprehesnsion loss" classes ;')

In the context of the article, I *don't* think that was the thrust of the section you snipped. Rather, because snitching is used so haphazardly, it is exacerbating a problem (the vicious circle of violence and crime in poor communities, caused in part by a crumbling social structure) that GOOD law enforcement would be working against.

Wasn't the claim of the article that snitching has not caused a net decrease in crime? Rather that it has made a class of criminals that are able to get away with continued criminal activity? Also, stop snitching can also be read to mean:

"Stop commiting crimes and than trying to turn in other people to get away with it and commit more crimes."

As opposed to:
"Stop helping the police."

From the article:

"Nearly every family contains someone who is incarcerated, under supervision, or has a criminal record."

There's the problem right there.

"presumably the proescutors/cops are only willing to do this when there is a bigger fish to fry than the snitch himself."

You'd think so, but that's changed as the War On (Some) Drugs has turned into a numbers game. Quite often it's the big fish that gets a reduced sentence as a reward for snitching on several little fish. The heaviest sentences often hit penny-ante dealer/users who have no one else to snitch on.

Call me rude, but I think you should stick to your core competency. Let talk left or another legal blog deal with this issue, you clearly know nothing about it. Sorry, but your blase attitude about a serious issue is not appreciated.

The changing use of snitches has become a travesty over the past decade or so, with wide-ranging consequences (and decreasing crime has not been one of them). A related issue is certain changes in the rules of evidence that have allowed testimony from snitches to be introduced without allowing the jury to know about the source of the testimony.

It seems you have never been falsely accused of wrongdoing by someone trying to avoid jail time. Congratulations. Hope something like that never happens to you or anyone you care about. Can you understand?

Dunno, I grew up in a nice sheltered middle class place and "snitches get stitches" was the watch word, you didn't rat out your's. And if you did, don't get caught.

It just wasn't done. I always figured the rougher neighbourhoods had a similar idea.

LACJ: So, argument by emotion, is it?

Could you point us to the change in evidence rules and its scope? Could you give us any data about the actual prevalence of false convictions? Point out specifics of these wide-ranging consequences and show how they're truly caused by "changing use of snitches"?

If the issue is as serious as you say, you should treat it as seriously as you demand Jane do. (And did she not say "I'm well prepared to believe that there are serious problems with the way our nation's police forces use informers"? Was she not concerned only with one paragraph and the strange things it seemed to be saying?)

(I mean, the idea that snitching reduces positive role models is boggling. If the snitch is a fellow criminal, not-snitching makes them no more positive. If the snitch is a bystander or victim, then, well, it's right and good, and a positive role model right there. And creating distrust? Well, yeah. Between criminals or between criminals and the non-criminal, and I have to agree with Jane that fostering trust between those sets of people isn't a good goal of policing programs. Or, really, a good thing at all.)

As I say, I'm more than willing to believe that the use of snitches is causing more harm that it prevents, although my preference would be to do away with the WOD. But the specific problem of breaking apart the family and community bonds between criminals does not, to me, seem like much of a problem.

But the specific problem of breaking apart the family and community bonds between criminals does not, to me, seem like much of a problem.

No arguments with the sentiment, but I don't see that point being made by the article's author. Consequently I think you're attempting to make a distinction without a difference: What was that quote that was pulled into the Matrix screenplay? "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"?

For many poor communities where the cycle of violence and crime has left everyone with some sort of record, there are very often no role models with the sort of character one might hope to find in someone worthy of the title (the "two-eyed man" as it were). But at the same time, the police misuse of snitches leaves an atmosphere of complete distrust. If you can't trust *anyone* because *everyone* is potentially at risk of being blackballed for information, then you cannot share or confide.

And we probably don't need a psychologist on hand to explain what happens when a person bottles up their feelings over an extended period of time.

Now, the author didn't say that explicitly. And maybe the author didn't mean that, and really does want mafia-style families to subsist and persist, and I'm inventing text in between the lines just to avoid concluding that the author is an idiot with dangerous ideas...but I doubt it.

Anony-mouse,

Interesting response, per ususal. My suspicion is that the author's intent is somewhere in between the two alternatives you pose. She seems to posit the trust issues you mention with a tremendous amount of importance while ignoring that the resulting conditions would quite likely reinforce the mores that enable the mafia-style families to subsist and persist.

Comments are Closed.