Use of Snitches A related method to gather evidence, involves the use of informants—often “low-level” offenders—to obtain incriminating in...
Use of Snitches A related method to gather evidence, involves the use of informants—often “low-level” offenders—to obtain incriminating information against other suspects, in exchange for legal leniency or other benefits to the informants. The informant may be incorporated into undercover operations, where he can perform deceptive functions similar to those of the undercover officers; may attempt to elicit incriminating information from suspects while both are in custody; or may simply provide information already (allegedly) known.
The use of such informants (colloquially known as snitches) has been the source of controversy among legal circles and the general public. Proponents of the technique claim that offering leniency to low-level offenders is a justifiable moral compromise affording the legal system effective means of apprehending higher-level criminals. Conversely, opponents of snitching deals argue that such deals represent an unjustified compromise of law enforcement ethics and justice principles, with undesirable effects outweighing potential benefits.
They note that the clandestine and unregulated nature of snitching deals can lead to instances of unanticipated victimization of innocents, corruption, and other ethically questionable outcomes. Incentives offered to snitches can induce them to provide false information, purposely incriminating innocent persons solely to reap the benefits of the deal. Moreover, leniency offered in such deals can encourage criminal activity by allowing informants to escape repercussions of their own criminal activities. Interrogation Practices Interrogation strategies, as practiced by American law enforcement, are arguably second only to undercover operations in deceptiveness. Although interrogators do not deceive at the level of their identity as law enforcement officers, they do so with virtually every other representation made during interrogation. The interrogator feigns good will toward the suspect, indicating that s/he thinks the suspect is a good guy caught in a bad situation, and stating that s/he would like to help the suspect get the best outcomes. S/he promotes the illusion that s/he has the authority to affect whether and what charges are filed against the suspect (which is actually the province of prosecutors). S/he misrepresents the purpose of the interrogation as an opportunity for the suspect to help himself by
“explaining” his side of the story, rather than as an attempt to secure the suspect’s conviction. S/he depicts often scant evidence of guilt as overwhelming, often claiming to have evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, failed polygraph tests, or eyewitnesses that doesn’t actually exist. And, the overriding deceptive message of the interrogation is that confession is actually in suspects’ best long term legal interests, whereas refusal to confess will work against them. While such strategies are effective in eliciting true confessions, they have also been implicated in the elicitation of a growing Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception number of documented false confessions to serious crimes such as murder, rape, and others. Modern interrogation strategies were developed not only to deceive the suspects and induce them to confess against self-interest,
but also to mislead the courts. The importance of full confessions in securing convictions, along with the risk of false confessions raised by coercive interrogation practices, have led to the establishment of laws and regulations in the United States to protect suspects from use of physical violence, overt threats, and false promises of leniency to elicit incriminating admissions. Interrogators acknowledge that suspects are unlikely to confess unless they believe it is in their own best interests. Since explicit threats and promises regarding the consequences of confession are explicitly forbidden, interrogators have adopted strategies for conveying the incentives for confession without explicitly stating them. The success of these strategies in deceiving the courts is reflected in widespread refusal of the courts to recognize the clarity with which the strategies do convey threats and promises, along with widespread refusal to suppress confessions elicited through their use: and in interrogators’ simultaneous success in leading suspect to confess by convincing them it is in their best interest to do so.
No comments