| | NEGATIVE INCENTIVES INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED "SNITCHING"
INTRO
| | |
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.
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?
| >
> | 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. | | |
INCENTIVES FOR CRIMINALS | |
<
< | The federal informant procedures in place currently create incentives for criminals to provide information to law enforcement under false pretenses. In this system, “information” that can lead to an arrest becomes a commodity, to be traded with law enforcement for reduced sentences or to be sold to other criminals to be used as bargaining chips with the federal government. (For a an illustration of this marketplace in action See Snitch Market Illustration
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?
| >
> | The federal informant procedures in place currently create incentives for criminals to provide information to law enforcement under false pretenses. In this system, “information” that can lead to an arrest becomes a commodity, to be traded with law enforcement for reduced sentences or to be sold to other criminals to be used as bargaining chips with the federal government. (For a an illustration of this marketplace in action See Snitch Market Illustration. While in many prisons it is generally prohibited for inmates to buy, sell, or trade items purchased on commissary, the marketplace for information only adds to the number of conflicts that can arise in prison due to black market disagreements and “deals gone bad”. The highly sought rewards for being a witness or offering information undermine prisons’ attempts to limit the accumulation of “wealth” inside institutions. In this way, information about the outside world becomes a commodity in prisons, bought, sold, stolen, and possibly even counterfeited. | | | | |
>
> | 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? Probably not. And while the espionage-like tactics involving the use of information as a tool for survival are well established in the world of CIA agents and other highly trained personnel, in the criminal justice system, the information gathering and disseminating is being done by untrained individuals. Use of Confidential Informants Mostly Unregulated: NPR. Imagine the United States government sending an ill-prepared, untrained, recent college grad on a mission to obtain information about weapons smuggling in Syria. It probably wouldn’t happen. (And even if this type of foolish action was procedure throughout government institutions involved in social conflicts, the prevalence of bad-decision making doesn’t somehow transform it into good decision-making). | | | 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. | |
<
< | 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?
| >
> | If juries and judges were unbiased, completely neutral, and did not have their own per-conceived ideas about the people who are tried in many cases, then it could be assumed that any “shaky” witnesses would be given little if no merit and any information that was questionably obtained or possibly fabricated would also be subject to great scrutiny; however, that is not always the case. In a case where the jury has a per-conceived notions about the defendant (let’s say a majority white jury from a predominantly white neighborhood and a Black defendant with corn rows and tattoos) ‘shaky” witnesses and questionable evidence are likely to be far more believable and accepted as truth. Fate of Black Defendants May Rest with Juror Backgrounds. Although it would be unreasonable to ask the criminal justice system to eliminate the hidden prejudices of the entire jury pool (questions posed to potential jurors during jury selection don't always reveal these biases, which may many times be unknown to the juror as well), it is not unreasonable to urge the criminal justice system to expend more effort in making sure that evidence and witnesses that should never see the courtroom, in fact never make it that far. | | |
INCENTIVES FOR PROSECUTORS | | | 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. | |
<
< |
All witnesses have personal motives, biases and axes to grind. So?
| >
> | 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. | | | |
|