I found this article to be very interesting. I personally believe that the "snitches" who are giving out information cannot be trusted. They are in jail for a reason they are criminals. Although, if a criminal was to bloat and brag about his crime who is he going to tell? Other criminals of course. So the fact that its hard to trust a criminal they are going to be the one to get the information first hand. I find it interesting that about half of the innocent people who were put to death was caused by jailhouse informants giving false information. That supports the idea that jailhouse informants are criminals and will lie. I think its smart that some states are putting these informants through different tests to see if they are capable of telling the truth. I could see both ways on this topic but personally I would not trust them. -Godzilla789
I agree with you that it is wrong that so many people were put to death by false statements by informants. With informants it is true that sometimes you just can’t trust them but there are cases where a criminal is going to get the inside information that you need that you can’t get yourself so sometimes they can be very beneficial. Birdman789
I also agree that a prison informant that has nothing to loose should a credible source of information. If they are going to be helped by doing this then why wouldn't they lie to help themselves? They defiantly need to figure something out because these lying informants are killing people basically. KLICK789
I agree with you on we cannot trust these snitches. They are criminals and most of them are concerned with getting out so they will do whatever they have to do to get out earlier. A lot of them use the snitching as a way to get back at someone who made them mad so they just make a lie up about them to get them in trouble and then to get their sentence shortened. They should investigate the truth behind the snitching before they allow them to speak at a trial. dragons789
I really agree with the criminals not being able to be trusted to be informants because they will lie to get less jailtime. I liked how you supported you comment by saying the percentage of informants that lied just to get less jail time. That was an all around post. But what really made a point was that other criminals are going to rat them out anyways. It may be interpreted that you might as well rat them out yourself because its going to happen one way or another. ICCRunner798
I think this is one of those ideas that sound good on paper, if someone rats someone out they are rewarded with a sentencing reduction. This sounds like an exploit waiting to happen. We have seen this now and this article has shown it. It is hard to trust these people due to the situation, but they do have answers we can't get ourselves. Palmdaddy789
This was a very interesting thing to read. If you use “snitching” to get information and granting lighter sentences it can cause good things and bad things to happen. A good thing that could happen is that it promotes the inmates to tell officers of true information that could be vital. On the other hand if the inmate knows that it could benefit them they could just lie about something and get a reduced sentence that way. With the Joaquin Rams case I think that at least two of the informant’s testimonies should be thrown out because they had mental problems. One was so bad that he suffered from hallucinations and thought he knew were Osama Bin Laden was at. If I was the officer that he talked to I would still take down what he had to say but I may doubt that the information is solid based on how unstable mentally he has been. For all I know he could have been hallucinating the whole thing and forget that when it really happened, if it did, that he was really seeing like Abraham Lincoln because he was suffering from a mental episode. Birdman789
Its not good thing at all Because the Guards, Police Officers not going to always be around that informant. Know a Days if a person get to you they go to your family to hurt them just because of you snitching. I really don't think the informants know what the getting themselves into.SHAYLAVON789
I found this article a little disturbing because you cant go off what the next person say. I'm just curious about what happen to the innocent until proven guilty, or guilty beyond reasonable doubt thing. Know the system so screwed up they just ask other inmates ,which I think is a joke. they are inmates for a reason why would you try to make them informant knowing they can be lien.They could have some type of animosity against another inmates so of-course they will lie to get the other person longer time. Especially the inmate that said he knew where to ind Osama Bin Laden, they should of known he had some type of mental Illness. Plenty of people are getting executed just from word of mouth according to the article.The PD and Detective didn't have enough evidence to do that crazy stuff and they know but they still did it anyway which is not fair or they was to damn lazy to look further so they just went with the first thing that came to mind.Also I feel like the informants that lied on the other inmates and got them major time or the chair should get charge with murder. First, of all you lied on this man for what , then you got him the chair and died, and comes to find out he was wrongfully convicted its to late know you cant take death back, So therefore they should get charge with it.SHAYLAVON789
I can understand if you told on the other guy in the cell with you if it was true and needed to be told. But to make up something to get that other person in more trouble and to benefit you is just immature. I understand it's a dog eat dog world, but that can put you in danger and be life threatening, especially if you just happen to do it to the wrong person. It's terrible knowing that these people will throw someone out and under the bus just to take some time off of their sentence. I wonder if the police have anything to do with it. Paying prison inmates to lie and to have the other person for sure do a lot of jail time? -Ibanez789
This article really shows us more problems and concerns in the correctional system. In jail the take on traits of the free society the in-mates once knew. In normal society there are informants and "snitches", and just like prison people don't always tell the truth but it is up to the reporting officer to use his/her best judgment when hearing the informants information. I honestly dont see how you can call information from a prisoner with severe mental issues credible. I believe that they need to choose who the snitches are more wisely. Also i dont think the prison informants should be able to know what kind of reward they are getting.
One thing I don’t fully understand is that if they want a confession out of someone so badly, then why don’t they bug something that they wear; namely let’s say, the collar of their uniform or the inside of a button? They have already submitted themselves as criminals against the law so by any means of playing ‘Big Brother’ why wouldn’t this be right and just seeing as how the whole prison has cameras everywhere. Fact of the matter is this is no longer 1970’s espionage, this is 2010’s over the counter twenty dollar devices you can easily purchase. Especially with cases of mentally-disgruntled individuals and abusers of the system snitching by telling the wrong side of the story. - StrongArm789
I think the article was very interesting. I don't think the two guy should be allowed to testify in the death penalty hearing. It said they were mentally incompetent to stand trial in their own cases so why should they be allowed to speak in a trial against someone else. I also feel as if they will not completely tell the truth and they are just doing this so they can get time taken off their sentence. I feel like a lot of the inmates who do the snitching do it as forms or retaliation against someone or as a way to shorten their sentence. Also a lot of the time they snitch on their cell mate. If they get mad at their cell mate they will often snitch on them to both get revenge on them and also to get a new cell mate. I think these snitches need to be investigated better and make sure what they are telling is the truth before they are allowed to speak during a trial. dragons789
I agree with you when you say snitches need to be investigated better, they should record conversations. That way they have the exact sorry exact facts for trail. -dicaprio789
The story of snitches in prisons bleeds deeper than the story of the boy who once cried wolf. Relying on a convicted criminal’s small truth is about as reliable as shooting a gun straight up in the air and pinpointing exactly where it’s bullet will land. I don’t believe a snitch’s testimony should ever be used unless they are strapped with a recording device. Criminals will lie inside of prison to build a tough rapport so who’s to say they never lied before they got locked up. If their word is to be trusted by a judge and a jury, as in Joaquin S. Rams’ case, concrete evidence should be the only evidence they have. One of the informants started to say that they knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and another was deemed a blatant liar just to get a lighter sentence himself. The system itself is deranged if this is a good means of evidence. It all seems awfully unfair when it is stated that the child’s (Rams’ son) cause of death could not be determined, which is most likely why the courts wanted some insider information to hold against Rams. Besides this case though, the percentage of cases by which 111 people were sentenced to death since the 1970s because of the snitch-twist is one massive eye-opener. Also, with Illinois’ reputation I was blown away to see that they were the only state to have a type of safeguard in their state law to protect wrongful accusations internally. Every angle of this proves that a snitch is only as honest as their itch to get out. - StrongArm789
I agree with you, but even a recorded conversation can be unreliable. The two people talking could discuss a plan not to self incriminate before they start recording. I like to think of the movie "wolf of wall street" when jordan belfort wears the wire and writes "im wearing a wire, do not incriminate yourself" on a piece of paper while they are recording. It might be a stretch to think this will happen, but it could. The informants should not be trusted anyway, they are in prison for a reason and prisoners should not be trusted.
Wolf on Wall Street. Good show. And your point is well received. What would keep individuals from cooking up a scripted conversation if they knew they were being recorded. Nothing, that what :) Its not a stretch at all. These guys are locked up. Creativity is for everyone not just the non-incarcerated. Revenge or the hope of a reduced sentence could drive people to do this. Doberman789
I found this article to be very interesting but first things first jail house "snitches" cannot be trusted. Doug Ramseur even said "Jurors think criminals are not that smart and they think they just sit around and brag about their crimes." Which is one of the realest things that i've heard. Just because criminals might not be "book" smart (well some could but most are uneducated" doesn't mean they are not "street" smart. Most of them have grown up in the streets, they know how to scheme and lie to get what they want. So of course people are going to snitch and try to get out of their sentences. But i do think it could be helpful for some cases because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If they are going to use "snitches" in trail it needs to be handled properly. I think they should record conversations just to be 100%. A lot of criminals are also mentally unstable and will say or do anything for attentions. Look at that guy from the Locked Up episode cutting himself just to get attention and get out of his cell, and also on camera saying different things he saw off camera. Trusting criminals should be taken with a grain of salt. -dicaprio789
I agree that snitches cannot be trusted, but I don't necessarily believe that all criminals will brag about their crimes. Some of them might, but it should not be up to the snitches to testify against an individual. The recording of their conversations could also be unconstitutional, and cause issues that may bring the supreme court into this. We must always discount witnesses, they are not always correct. I doubt that a snitch would be anymore trustworthy, probably less so. Silverado789
Jail house informants cannot be trusted. They will lie and cheat and do whatever it takes to benefit themselves. I do think that we need to check a prisoners background and what they were arrested for more carefully. I wouldn't trust a person who was convicted of perjury to be my informant. The police also need to realize that most of these people who are in prison will be in prison for several years. therefore, those who are locked up in a prison will become very close to each other and would make sure nothing happens to their friend. Having jail house informants is also very dangerous. With any case of having an informant the informant is in fear of serious injury or death if they are found out. The prison informant are in more danger because there is nowhere to run if they are found out. The police departments really need to rethink how they use informants in prisons.
I found this article extremely interesting. The use of informants from jails is an interesting concept. It could be useful in some circumstances, but unlike what most jurors from the article stated, I don't believe that criminals always brag about their crimes. Most of the people incarcerated may even claim that they committed absolutely no crime. Jail house informants would be extremely sketchy and could not always be trusted. The passing of information could also be incentive for some informants because they may get a lesser sentence. It's unfortunate that correctional officials would even take the snitches for their word. It is also a little strange that a lot of the snitches operate through correctional workers. They inform many of the officers of each others crimes. The officers should not use these inmates as evidence or witness against a potential criminal. The use of informants should be lessened or not used at all, it could cause major problems in the future or even get an innocent individual incarcerated. Silverado789
I am on both sides of this article. It is a good thing to figure out if someone is innocent of not on a trial or conviction or if someone is rightfully convicted. Hopefully they are rightfully convicted so that we didn't make an innocent man serve the right sentence. But it is morally wrong because you would be ratting out a fellow inmate. Yeah he did something wrong and stuff but you are ratting him out. Now if you go back to prison he will be looking for you when you return. It is also good to have informants to watch out for future criminal acts. Just as long as you watch out for that you will be fine. So I'm not sure what side to be on because it is a two way street with this. Good and a bad thing to be a rat but it could go either way. ICCRunner798
I agree with you because I also found myself on both sides of this issue. I can see how their statements may help to incarcerate someone who deserves it, but it can also cause the problem of wrongfully convicted people. Unfortunately, this is a tough circumstance to analyze and make an appropriate decision because both the positive and negative sides are strong. Cards789
This article was eye-opening to the fact that using inmates against each other is not beneficial, and can cause more harm than it does good. Although it can sometimes be helpful to use someone's testimony in order to get a decrease in their sentence and to incarcerate someone who needs to be taken off the street, it can also cause someone to wrongfully accuse someone of something just to reduce their own sentence. Since it is possible and even likely that inmates are inclined to turn on each other or "snitch" in order to reduce their own sentence, I agree that it is something that should be in consideration to abolish. It is difficult to know the correct way to handle this situation because this practice of inmates relaying their information about other inmates can be beneficial and allow the cops to arrest someone who needs to be arrested, but it can also be detrimental because people are inclined to say whatever they need to say in order to help themselves out. Cards789
This is why giving people the benefit of the doubt is so hard, especially if they are Jailhouse informants. Using these claims as a way to get some time knocked off of your sentencing sounds like an opportunity to be taken advantage of. These people may have already been in the system many times and are serving hard time. I don't know what I would do to get out and that sounds like something I would be tempted by doing. I am curious on how they measure that will be taken to test these claims will go. It is crazy that one person could ruin your life in hopes of shorting their sentence that they earned. Palmdaddy789
Snitches get Stitches! Ok, i got that out of the way. Can't help it. I must watch too much TV. I read this article a couple times. This is the first time I have ever heard that the county or anyone for that matter has a 'Snitch tank'. I couldn't wait to bring this up in small group tonight. In short, convicted felons can not be trusted as reliable informants because they have too much to gain from creating false information. Possibility: What if a rival gang member was planted, or someone from the family of a victim to accelerate a process or bring unwarranted 'justice'. Sounds crazy, but my mind went there so anyone else's could. Convictions are hard to get sometimes. Whats to say a prosecutor wouldn't stoop this low. Informants are used on the street. Does the same principle apply to incarcerated inmates? Non-incarcerated felons have records and yet we use their information to make busts. What is different? Now the guys on the street aren't trying to get reduced sentences and perks on the inside though. Now what kind of a person is out in the criminal element phoning it in? Informing on the element that they are in. Fortunately, the 'honor among thieves' idea is further torn apart with this article. These cats are doing time, and some of them have been found to be 'incompetent to stand trial'. I don't know what delayed indefinitely means, but it doesn't sound good to the victims families who are waiting for a trial. The prevention of tainted information looks to be propped up by 'reliability hearings'. Tell me something if you have to have a hearing to see if something is reliable do you want it? Like, you can drink that soda there but first we have to have a hearing. Hell no. These are peoples lives we are talking about. Anyway, the soda thing was weak but its all I have right now. The bottom line is these people can't be trusted. Aesop's fable the Frog and the Scorpion. That is a tight story. The gist of the story is : a persons 'nature' is irrepressible. No matter what. Your character is ingrained. Now the scorpions nature got him killed, and there is nothing he would've done differently. Thats the point. Pun intended. Anyway, if you're actually reading this post check that fable out. Doberman789
I found this article to be very interesting. I personally believe that the "snitches" who are giving out information cannot be trusted. They are in jail for a reason they are criminals. Although, if a criminal was to bloat and brag about his crime who is he going to tell? Other criminals of course. So the fact that its hard to trust a criminal they are going to be the one to get the information first hand. I find it interesting that about half of the innocent people who were put to death was caused by jailhouse informants giving false information. That supports the idea that jailhouse informants are criminals and will lie. I think its smart that some states are putting these informants through different tests to see if they are capable of telling the truth. I could see both ways on this topic but personally I would not trust them. -Godzilla789
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is wrong that so many people were put to death by false statements by informants. With informants it is true that sometimes you just can’t trust them but there are cases where a criminal is going to get the inside information that you need that you can’t get yourself so sometimes they can be very beneficial. Birdman789
DeleteI also agree that a prison informant that has nothing to loose should a credible source of information. If they are going to be helped by doing this then why wouldn't they lie to help themselves? They defiantly need to figure something out because these lying informants are killing people basically.
DeleteKLICK789
I agree with you on we cannot trust these snitches. They are criminals and most of them are concerned with getting out so they will do whatever they have to do to get out earlier. A lot of them use the snitching as a way to get back at someone who made them mad so they just make a lie up about them to get them in trouble and then to get their sentence shortened. They should investigate the truth behind the snitching before they allow them to speak at a trial. dragons789
DeleteI really agree with the criminals not being able to be trusted to be informants because they will lie to get less jailtime. I liked how you supported you comment by saying the percentage of informants that lied just to get less jail time. That was an all around post. But what really made a point was that other criminals are going to rat them out anyways. It may be interpreted that you might as well rat them out yourself because its going to happen one way or another. ICCRunner798
DeleteI think this is one of those ideas that sound good on paper, if someone rats someone out they are rewarded with a sentencing reduction. This sounds like an exploit waiting to happen. We have seen this now and this article has shown it. It is hard to trust these people due to the situation, but they do have answers we can't get ourselves.
DeletePalmdaddy789
This was a very interesting thing to read. If you use “snitching” to get information and granting lighter sentences it can cause good things and bad things to happen. A good thing that could happen is that it promotes the inmates to tell officers of true information that could be vital. On the other hand if the inmate knows that it could benefit them they could just lie about something and get a reduced sentence that way. With the Joaquin Rams case I think that at least two of the informant’s testimonies should be thrown out because they had mental problems. One was so bad that he suffered from hallucinations and thought he knew were Osama Bin Laden was at. If I was the officer that he talked to I would still take down what he had to say but I may doubt that the information is solid based on how unstable mentally he has been. For all I know he could have been hallucinating the whole thing and forget that when it really happened, if it did, that he was really seeing like Abraham Lincoln because he was suffering from a mental episode. Birdman789
ReplyDeleteIts not good thing at all Because the Guards, Police Officers not going to always be around that informant. Know a Days if a person get to you they go to your family to hurt them just because of you snitching. I really don't think the informants know what the getting themselves into.SHAYLAVON789
DeleteI found this article a little disturbing because you cant go off what the next person say. I'm just curious about what happen to the innocent until proven guilty, or guilty beyond reasonable doubt thing. Know the system so screwed up they just ask other inmates ,which I think is a joke. they are inmates for a reason why would you try to make them informant knowing they can be lien.They could have some type of animosity against another inmates so of-course they will lie to get the other person longer time. Especially the inmate that said he knew where to ind Osama Bin Laden, they should of known he had some type of mental Illness. Plenty of people are getting executed just from word of mouth according to the article.The PD and Detective didn't have enough evidence to do that crazy stuff and they know but they still did it anyway which is not fair or they was to damn lazy to look further so they just went with the first thing that came to mind.Also I feel like the informants that lied on the other inmates and got them major time or the chair should get charge with murder. First, of all you lied on this man for what , then you got him the chair and died, and comes to find out he was wrongfully convicted its to late know you cant take death back, So therefore they should get charge with it.SHAYLAVON789
ReplyDeleteI can understand if you told on the other guy in the cell with you if it was true and needed to be told. But to make up something to get that other person in more trouble and to benefit you is just immature. I understand it's a dog eat dog world, but that can put you in danger and be life threatening, especially if you just happen to do it to the wrong person. It's terrible knowing that these people will throw someone out and under the bus just to take some time off of their sentence. I wonder if the police have anything to do with it. Paying prison inmates to lie and to have the other person for sure do a lot of jail time?
ReplyDelete-Ibanez789
This article really shows us more problems and concerns in the correctional system. In jail the take on traits of the free society the in-mates once knew. In normal society there are informants and "snitches", and just like prison people don't always tell the truth but it is up to the reporting officer to use his/her best judgment when hearing the informants information. I honestly dont see how you can call information from a prisoner with severe mental issues credible. I believe that they need to choose who the snitches are more wisely. Also i dont think the prison informants should be able to know what kind of reward they are getting.
ReplyDeleteKLICK789
One thing I don’t fully understand is that if they want a confession out of someone so badly, then why don’t they bug something that they wear; namely let’s say, the collar of their uniform or the inside of a button? They have already submitted themselves as criminals against the law so by any means of playing ‘Big Brother’ why wouldn’t this be right and just seeing as how the whole prison has cameras everywhere. Fact of the matter is this is no longer 1970’s espionage, this is 2010’s over the counter twenty dollar devices you can easily purchase. Especially with cases of mentally-disgruntled individuals and abusers of the system snitching by telling the wrong side of the story. - StrongArm789
DeleteI think the article was very interesting. I don't think the two guy should be allowed to testify in the death penalty hearing. It said they were mentally incompetent to stand trial in their own cases so why should they be allowed to speak in a trial against someone else. I also feel as if they will not completely tell the truth and they are just doing this so they can get time taken off their sentence. I feel like a lot of the inmates who do the snitching do it as forms or retaliation against someone or as a way to shorten their sentence. Also a lot of the time they snitch on their cell mate. If they get mad at their cell mate they will often snitch on them to both get revenge on them and also to get a new cell mate. I think these snitches need to be investigated better and make sure what they are telling is the truth before they are allowed to speak during a trial. dragons789
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say snitches need to be investigated better, they should record conversations. That way they have the exact sorry exact facts for trail. -dicaprio789
DeleteThe story of snitches in prisons bleeds deeper than the story of the boy who once cried wolf. Relying on a convicted criminal’s small truth is about as reliable as shooting a gun straight up in the air and pinpointing exactly where it’s bullet will land. I don’t believe a snitch’s testimony should ever be used unless they are strapped with a recording device. Criminals will lie inside of prison to build a tough rapport so who’s to say they never lied before they got locked up. If their word is to be trusted by a judge and a jury, as in Joaquin S. Rams’ case, concrete evidence should be the only evidence they have. One of the informants started to say that they knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and another was deemed a blatant liar just to get a lighter sentence himself. The system itself is deranged if this is a good means of evidence. It all seems awfully unfair when it is stated that the child’s (Rams’ son) cause of death could not be determined, which is most likely why the courts wanted some insider information to hold against Rams. Besides this case though, the percentage of cases by which 111 people were sentenced to death since the 1970s because of the snitch-twist is one massive eye-opener. Also, with Illinois’ reputation I was blown away to see that they were the only state to have a type of safeguard in their state law to protect wrongful accusations internally. Every angle of this proves that a snitch is only as honest as their itch to get out. - StrongArm789
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but even a recorded conversation can be unreliable. The two people talking could discuss a plan not to self incriminate before they start recording. I like to think of the movie "wolf of wall street" when jordan belfort wears the wire and writes "im wearing a wire, do not incriminate yourself" on a piece of paper while they are recording. It might be a stretch to think this will happen, but it could. The informants should not be trusted anyway, they are in prison for a reason and prisoners should not be trusted.
DeleteCountryGirl789
Wolf on Wall Street. Good show. And your point is well received. What would keep individuals from cooking up a scripted conversation if they knew they were being recorded. Nothing, that what :) Its not a stretch at all. These guys are locked up. Creativity is for everyone not just the non-incarcerated. Revenge or the hope of a reduced sentence could drive people to do this. Doberman789
DeleteI found this article to be very interesting but first things first jail house "snitches" cannot be trusted. Doug Ramseur even said "Jurors think criminals are not that smart and they think they just sit around and brag about their crimes." Which is one of the realest things that i've heard. Just because criminals might not be "book" smart (well some could but most are uneducated" doesn't mean they are not "street" smart. Most of them have grown up in the streets, they know how to scheme and lie to get what they want. So of course people are going to snitch and try to get out of their sentences. But i do think it could be helpful for some cases because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If they are going to use "snitches" in trail it needs to be handled properly. I think they should record conversations just to be 100%. A lot of criminals are also mentally unstable and will say or do anything for attentions. Look at that guy from the Locked Up episode cutting himself just to get attention and get out of his cell, and also on camera saying different things he saw off camera. Trusting criminals should be taken with a grain of salt. -dicaprio789
ReplyDeleteI agree that snitches cannot be trusted, but I don't necessarily believe that all criminals will brag about their crimes. Some of them might, but it should not be up to the snitches to testify against an individual. The recording of their conversations could also be unconstitutional, and cause issues that may bring the supreme court into this. We must always discount witnesses, they are not always correct. I doubt that a snitch would be anymore trustworthy, probably less so.
DeleteSilverado789
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJail house informants cannot be trusted. They will lie and cheat and do whatever it takes to benefit themselves. I do think that we need to check a prisoners background and what they were arrested for more carefully. I wouldn't trust a person who was convicted of perjury to be my informant. The police also need to realize that most of these people who are in prison will be in prison for several years. therefore, those who are locked up in a prison will become very close to each other and would make sure nothing happens to their friend. Having jail house informants is also very dangerous. With any case of having an informant the informant is in fear of serious injury or death if they are found out. The prison informant are in more danger because there is nowhere to run if they are found out. The police departments really need to rethink how they use informants in prisons.
ReplyDeleteCountryGirl789
I found this article extremely interesting. The use of informants from jails is an interesting concept. It could be useful in some circumstances, but unlike what most jurors from the article stated, I don't believe that criminals always brag about their crimes. Most of the people incarcerated may even claim that they committed absolutely no crime. Jail house informants would be extremely sketchy and could not always be trusted. The passing of information could also be incentive for some informants because they may get a lesser sentence. It's unfortunate that correctional officials would even take the snitches for their word. It is also a little strange that a lot of the snitches operate through correctional workers. They inform many of the officers of each others crimes. The officers should not use these inmates as evidence or witness against a potential criminal. The use of informants should be lessened or not used at all, it could cause major problems in the future or even get an innocent individual incarcerated.
ReplyDeleteSilverado789
I am on both sides of this article. It is a good thing to figure out if someone is innocent of not on a trial or conviction or if someone is rightfully convicted. Hopefully they are rightfully convicted so that we didn't make an innocent man serve the right sentence. But it is morally wrong because you would be ratting out a fellow inmate. Yeah he did something wrong and stuff but you are ratting him out. Now if you go back to prison he will be looking for you when you return. It is also good to have informants to watch out for future criminal acts. Just as long as you watch out for that you will be fine. So I'm not sure what side to be on because it is a two way street with this. Good and a bad thing to be a rat but it could go either way. ICCRunner798
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because I also found myself on both sides of this issue. I can see how their statements may help to incarcerate someone who deserves it, but it can also cause the problem of wrongfully convicted people. Unfortunately, this is a tough circumstance to analyze and make an appropriate decision because both the positive and negative sides are strong. Cards789
DeleteThis article was eye-opening to the fact that using inmates against each other is not beneficial, and can cause more harm than it does good. Although it can sometimes be helpful to use someone's testimony in order to get a decrease in their sentence and to incarcerate someone who needs to be taken off the street, it can also cause someone to wrongfully accuse someone of something just to reduce their own sentence. Since it is possible and even likely that inmates are inclined to turn on each other or "snitch" in order to reduce their own sentence, I agree that it is something that should be in consideration to abolish. It is difficult to know the correct way to handle this situation because this practice of inmates relaying their information about other inmates can be beneficial and allow the cops to arrest someone who needs to be arrested, but it can also be detrimental because people are inclined to say whatever they need to say in order to help themselves out. Cards789
ReplyDeleteThis is why giving people the benefit of the doubt is so hard, especially if they are Jailhouse informants. Using these claims as a way to get some time knocked off of your sentencing sounds like an opportunity to be taken advantage of. These people may have already been in the system many times and are serving hard time. I don't know what I would do to get out and that sounds like something I would be tempted by doing. I am curious on how they measure that will be taken to test these claims will go. It is crazy that one person could ruin your life in hopes of shorting their sentence that they earned.
ReplyDeletePalmdaddy789
Snitches get Stitches! Ok, i got that out of the way. Can't help it. I must watch too much TV. I read this article a couple times. This is the first time I have ever heard that the county or anyone for that matter has a 'Snitch tank'. I couldn't wait to bring this up in small group tonight. In short, convicted felons can not be trusted as reliable informants because they have too much to gain from creating false information. Possibility: What if a rival gang member was planted, or someone from the family of a victim to accelerate a process or bring unwarranted 'justice'. Sounds crazy, but my mind went there so anyone else's could. Convictions are hard to get sometimes. Whats to say a prosecutor wouldn't stoop this low. Informants are used on the street. Does the same principle apply to incarcerated inmates? Non-incarcerated felons have records and yet we use their information to make busts. What is different? Now the guys on the street aren't trying to get reduced sentences and perks on the inside though. Now what kind of a person is out in the criminal element phoning it in? Informing on the element that they are in. Fortunately, the 'honor among thieves' idea is further torn apart with this article. These cats are doing time, and some of them have been found to be 'incompetent to stand trial'. I don't know what delayed indefinitely means, but it doesn't sound good to the victims families who are waiting for a trial. The prevention of tainted information looks to be propped up by 'reliability hearings'. Tell me something if you have to have a hearing to see if something is reliable do you want it? Like, you can drink that soda there but first we have to have a hearing. Hell no. These are peoples lives we are talking about. Anyway, the soda thing was weak but its all I have right now.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is these people can't be trusted. Aesop's fable the Frog and the Scorpion. That is a tight story. The gist of the story is : a persons 'nature' is irrepressible. No matter what. Your character is ingrained. Now the scorpions nature got him killed, and there is nothing he would've done differently. Thats the point. Pun intended. Anyway, if you're actually reading this post check that fable out. Doberman789