To Snitch or not to snitch: that’s not the question
In the open letter to Anderson Cooper (”Open Letter: You Screwed Up the “Snitch” Story, Anderson Cooper,” see the link to the letter at the bottom of this post), David Borden, Executive Director of the Stop the Drug War writes about the effects of informant testimony on the prosecution of drug cases. Some people are being sentenced to multiple-year sentences on the basis of informant testimony alone. He writes:
“The exchange of leniency — or even money — for testimony that will help the prosecution is an absolutely routine tactic in the drug war. The DEA, in fact, continued to use a “super-snitch” named Andrew Chambers for numerous prosecutions after a court had determined him to be a repeat perjurer. Common sense tells us that testimony acquired in this way is not always reliable.”
One of the comments to the letter says:
“As a prosecutor I see the harm the ’stop snitching’ campaign does every day. For example, I have seen case after case where an person gets shot and refuses to testify about who shot him. [...] This has nothing to do with the war on drugs. These people aren’t thinking about that. They are just listening to what their hip-hop singers are telling them about how to stick it to the man. But they are only screwing themselves.
I could care less if no one ever cooperates in a drug investigation again. But when it comes to real crime, people need to start ’snitching’ unless they like living in hell.”
Notable are the last two sentences: the juxtaposition of “drug investigation” and “real crime.” This comes (allegedly) from a prosecutor! Obviously, informant testimony is invaluable in successfully prosecuting many cases, where a killer or a rapist would have otherwise have gone free. Obviously, the persons active in the “Stop Snitching” movement would agree with me on this. Obviously, the movement has at least something to do with the multiple instances of shoddy informant testimony putting people behind bars, people who are not persecuted for “real crimes.”
Of course, we can argue ad infinitum whether drug crimes constitute “real crimes.” But, in my opinion, that is not the point. The movement is only a sign of a social dissatisfaction with some aspect of our law enforcement as it is being applied to a social phenomenon that the government chooses to designate as a criminal matter. This dissatisfaction should send certain signals to the government that would prompt it to review its procedures and, possibly the underlying reasons behind them. If the venues for the feedback are insufficient - which would be demonstrated by the government’s inaction in this area - it obviously points to a systemic flaw in the interaction between the government and the governed. Similarly, if the government is aware of the (widespread?) criticism, but chooses not to address it, it points to an even more obvious flaw.
As promised, here’s the link to the David Borden letter:
Open Letter: You Screwed Up the “Snitch” Story, Anderson Cooper