You have forgotten that the assignment is to use fewer than 1,000 words. You are 83% over the word limit, which means you're not even trying.

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.

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?

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. Any effort to improve the criminal justice system, specifically prosecutors’ use of rewarded witnesses, should focus on creating a system where the negative incentives for prosecutors and witnesses are limited, as to not undermine the criminal justice system. This reform effort could seek to limit the rewards that witnesses are allowed to receive and also institute harsher punishment for prosecutors and criminals engaging in the transaction for false witness testimony or information.

Proponents for the use of informants like to think of the system as a way to get greater numbers and a greater caliber of criminal off of the street. However, this perception assumes that all of the information obtained from these informants is true. Imagine a person in prison convicted of selling drugs. If this person has knowledge of another individual who sells drugs he may alert authorities and make a deal to cooperate in the investigation of that individual. Although the prisoner may have never interacted with the target of the police investigation, the prisoner has every incentive to take the stand as a witness and testify to being involved in illegal operations with the targeted individual and prosecutors have every incentive to allow that testimony to go forward. “Who cares? They are criminals anyway! They chose to be involved in criminal activity so they should be aware that there is no honor amongst thieves.” Such a “make your bed now lay in it” attitude may seem fit for the situation of criminals testifying against criminals for reduced sentences. However, that feeling seems to assume the guilt of criminals before they have been tried in court. The real problem comes from the judicial system playing a role in a market as unethical as the one that exists between prosecutors and many informants. Surely if there is no honor amongst thieves, there must be some remnant of it within the criminal justice system. If all information received by informants was painstakingly and precisely verified then it would be a much improved system (perhaps still not perfect). Unfortunately out system is not so fine-tuned and to just ignore such a violation of people’s security and freedom is extremely unjust.

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.

It is undeniable that many, if not all witnesses have personal motives; however, what the criminal justice system should not do is make it easy, and in some cases lucrative for individuals to misuse the justice system. Although a witness might not always be inspired by the prospect of helping the system obtain justice in a particular case, it would be nice if there were more efforts towards preventing witnesses from purposely seeking injustice.

Of course there are. How could there not be? How could a system exist in which both cops and robbers didn't need one another, and in which the commerce 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 and sentences long.

So?

Information is not evidence, and no one supposes that it is.

Some informants are even allowed to stay on the streets (in many cases committing crimes with a certain level of impunity) merely because they are willing to give up information on competitors and other criminals. Communities suffer when law enforcement tolerates crimes committed by cooperating offenders, whether it is drug use, property crimes, or violence. Criminals that are willing to give up information on others are compelled to store information on others (or fabricate it) and hold on to that information to use whenever they are caught breaking the law. Does this system seem like a good idea for stopping crime?

It seems like the way information is gained in all forms of social conflict. So what?

Information is evidence when submitted in proceedings along with other evidence. Informants are witnesses when they testify and are subject to cross-examination. No information contributes to convictions that isn't submitted as evidence and subjected to critical scrutiny by adversaries, judges and jurors. So what exactly is your complaint?

All witnesses have personal motives, biases and axes to grind. So?

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.

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?

One doesn't "oversee" informants. One uses them. The purpose of informants is to produce information, not evidence.

NEGATIVE INCENTIVES INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED "SNITCHING" Second Draft

NEGATIVE INCENTIVES INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED "SNITCHING"

If our criminal justice system was perfect and precisely verified all information received by informants then it would be a much improved system (perhaps still not perfect). Unfortunately out system is not so fine-tuned and to just ignore such a violation of people’s security and freedom I extremely unjust.