Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
On Snitchin'
Per the piece I have posted today, David Doddridge, the ex-LAPD cop and narcotics officer I interviewed for the article also chatted with me about a few other issues. I've posted the entire interview on my personal blog.
Also, a word about the "Stop Snitchin'" campaigns, and the backlash against them: I think the whole debate sort of misses the point.
The Stop Snitchin' movement's resonance ought to raise some real questions about how we police drug crimes, questions journalists like Anderson Cooper don't bother to look into when they air some of the more outrageous comments from Stop Snitchin' advocates like Cam'ron. Why is it, for example, that some communities' mistrust of law enforcement is so pronounced that they'd rather violent crimes go unsolved—and continue to let perpetrators run free in their neighborhoods—than cooperate with the police? Seems to me that's a very serious problem, indicative of some pretty severe mistrust between the police and the communities they serve. What's behind that mistrust? How did it develop?
Perhaps it's because these communities have for years seen firsthand way the informant system fosters corruption and deceit, as the rest of the country is starting to see, in Atlanta and elsewhere. They don't trust police to use information properly, and they don't trust the police to protect them when they do cooperate. (Personal anecdote: I live in a fairly safe, somewhat trendy neighborhood. Just last fall, a state's witness in a drug case was shot in the head while waiting at a traffic light less than a mile from my house.)
Certainly when high-profile hip-hop artists push the Stop Snitchin' message, they're perpetuating a thug image that helps sell records. And that's regrettable. But the sentiment is real and it's pervasive, and not just among hip-hop artists and drug dealers. It exists because many communities in this country routinely see the types of abuses I discuss in today's article. The drug war has so poisoned many police-community relationships that the police can't get cooperation from witnesses to murders and rapes. You know, crimes with actual victims. Stop Snitchin' isn't the cause of that mistrust, it's a product of it.
At an ACLU conference on drug informants in Atlanta last March, I was taken aback when a rapper named Immortal Technique said (as Cam'ron would echo later in the Cooper interview) he wouldn't cooperate with the police under any circumstances, even if, for example, he'd witnessed an innocent old woman in his neighborhood get murdered. I still find that idea repugnant, of course. But what I think of it isn't really the point. The point is that that sentiment is out there, and there are real, troubling reasons why it's gaining momentum—reasons other than "those black people are just lawless heathens."
The same guy, Immortal Technique, repeated the comment a bit later in the conference, then added some food for thought: "Isn't the police 'blue wall of silence' the most successful stop snitchin' campaign in history?"
|8.15.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Thanks for keeping the light on these issues, even though I don't know how you do it. I've long since grown way too depressed about these issues to think about them too much.
|8.15.07 @ 5:08PM|#
"Isn't the police 'blue wall of silence' the most successful
stop snitchin' campaign in history?"
Zing! I would love to hear a LEO's response to that statement.
|8.15.07 @ 5:08PM|#
The "Stop Snitchin'" seems to go beyond not telling the police and actually threatning "snitches."
|8.15.07 @ 5:15PM|#
The aforementioned Immortal Technique has a catchy little song
called Bush Knocked Down the Towers. It's a must-hear.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0
ktc2|8.15.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Keep up the great work Radley. I hope you make a
difference.
I also hope you don't get too well known for this work, I mean in
the sense that you end up the deceased victim of an "accidental"
LEA raid yourself.
These people you are opposing are every bit as violent and
predatory as the thugs they are supposed to be protecting us
from.
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 5:24PM|#
"Isn't the police 'blue wall of silence' the most successful
stop snitchin' campaign in history?"
I have to second the insight of that statement. Brilliant. I have
to remember to use it.
I can't even imagine the pressure that must be applied to honest,
conscientious cops over the course of their careers (the number of
said cops being debatable).
|8.15.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Marcvs, I agree. Radley, you're doing the Lord's work, but I get
depressed enough reading about it. I can't imagine how it is
researching and reporting about it...
Episiarch, I second that emotion. It's fiction, I know, but I was
reminded of this reading some James Ellroy recently.
|8.15.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Certainly when high-profile hip-hop artists push the Stop
Snitchin' message, they're perpetuating a thug image that helps
sell records. And that's regrettable.
What am I missing here?
Just about every commercial entity out there perpetuates some kind
of image to help sell their product. Why is regrettable when
rappers do it and not anyone else?
Or is it the actual stop snitching message that is being pushed
that's regrettable?
Goldwater Conservative|8.15.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Pigs ought to be dealt with in a manner appropriate to pigdom.
Where I will disagree is with the reporting. I have no problem
ratting out a child rapist, but I WILL NEVER, EVER, I
REPEAT--NEVER RAT OUT SOMEONE WHO IS NON-VIOLENT, ESPECIALLY A DRUG
DEALER/USER
I think it is too black and white to think cops are good because
violent criminals are bad, or vice versa. Like Nazis, Communists
and Elitists, some cops are okay, but what they belong to is not.
The "just doin a job" shit is on the same level of "just followin
orders."
|8.15.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Surely Balko is correct that there is strong distrust in some black communities towards the police, and again much of that can be attributed correctly to the out of hand war on drugs techniques. However, as J.Q. Wilson (I think) pointed out, a good deal of the animosity between some young black men and police comes from the reality that all too many young black men want to do things the police will stop. It's not just drugs. A lot of it is "acting a fool" in ways that noone (even members of their community) appreciate. I highly recommend Elijah Andersons ethnographic work on the crazy behavior of the "street" minded in some urban black communities. The police will be seen by many of these punks to be harrassing them since anything short of letting them act in thuggish ways will create animosity...
Seitz|8.15.07 @ 6:14PM|#
The aforementioned Immortal Technique has a catchy little
song called Bush Knocked Down the Towers. It's a
must-hear.
So now that hypocrite is snitchin' on Bush?!
|8.15.07 @ 6:33PM|#
I agree it's depressing to read this stuff. It seems we have
traveled down this road so far that we can never some back.
Oh well, it was fun free society while it lasted...
I Refuse Posse|8.15.07 @ 6:48PM|#
It would be much more interesting, politically/culturally and morally speaking, if the stop snitchin' campaign advocated extra-judicial punishment for crimes of violence and property against innocent parties.
|8.15.07 @ 6:57PM|#
Immortal Technique is an insane, delusional anti-semite...and a fucking awesome rapper.
|8.15.07 @ 7:12PM|#
I think you're missing the point, Radly. I've admired your work
in the past, but this is beyond sloppy.
The "Stop Snitchin'" campaign tells black kids they have a moral
duty to protect black criminals. That's disgusting. It's
understandable that people in high-crime areas would be nervous
about helping the police, and would be suspicious and fearful of
police who are incompetent, not to mention corrupt. But the high
rates of murder, rape, and other violent crime in urban areas are
the responsibiity of criminals, not the police. And protecting
those criminals won't make things better.
|8.15.07 @ 7:30PM|#
I don't think Radley is unaware of that, Alan, the point is trying to determine how this kind of mistrust is fostered to the point where it is more harm than benefit.
|8.15.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Actually, I'm going to side with Alan this time around. Stop Snitching might of stemmed from shitty police work in the past, but at the same time it kind of comes off as those people who support Palastine's facist cartoon shows because Isreal's shitty history.
LibertyPlease|8.15.07 @ 7:39PM|#
"It would be much more interesting, politically/culturally
and morally speaking, if the stop snitchin' campaign advocated
extra-judicial punishment for crimes of violence and property
against innocent parties."
That's an interesting point. What if communities not only stopped
relying on the criminals with badges (as many have), what if they
took over the public service duties being neglected?
LibertyPlease|8.15.07 @ 7:42PM|#
"I think you're missing the point, Radly. I've admired your
work in the past, but this is beyond sloppy.
The "Stop Snitchin'" campaign tells black kids they have a moral
duty to protect black criminals. That's disgusting."
Alan V, I think you're missing the point. Police
misconduct/negligence/crime/ineffectiveness has become so pervasive
that the distrust is becoming formalized...
Radley Balko|8.15.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Alan,
I didn't say I supported the campaign (though I can't imagine a
scenario under which I'd report a consensual crime to the police).
I'm saying just merely lobbing criticism at the campaign overlooks
that fact that it resonates because of some very real injustices in
the way police use drug informants. And no one is talking about
that.
|8.15.07 @ 7:53PM|#
Isn't this just the latest MSM presentation of a seemingly new
and troubling social problem that demands immediate answers and
scapegoats? How and why can the black community - especially "the
children" - be so depraved that they wouldn't tell authorities
about crimes at risk of being considered a snitch.
Just as we are regularly bombarded with news of the latest social
"epidemic" involving gangs, violence, sex, drugs and the underworld
that can easily trace its presence in our media and culture from
current black ghettos back through the Italian mafia, Chinatowns,
Mexican barrios, Irish gangs and Jewish mobsters we can do the same
with snitching.
Snitches, stoolies, narks, rats, finks, weasels, squealers,
tattle-tails and Judas. Haven't we all heard this before and aren't
they things we don't want to be?
I might take this issue more seriously if I wasn't laughing so hard
from the media blaming rap before they've even finished
presenting the problem.
|8.15.07 @ 8:02PM|#
@ChicagoTom:
> Just about every commercial entity out there perpetuates some
kind of image to help sell their product. Why is regrettable when
rappers do it and not anyone else?
It is regrettable when anyone pushes a violent, thuggish image, in
order to get others to look up to them.
For example, Ronald McDonald saying "I'm cool because I spend money
at McD's" is annoying, but a rapper (or anyone else) saying "I'm
cool because I like to beat up women" is a serious problem.
Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 8:36PM|#
Alan -
Something approaching 30% of the male population of some minority
areas will be part of the criminal justice system at some point in
their lives.
Obviously 30% of the population aren't murderers and rapists.
The Stop Snitchin meme came along because of that portion of the
30% that aren't murderers and rapists.
|8.15.07 @ 8:50PM|#
I'm saying just merely lobbing criticism at the campaign
overlooks that fact that it resonates because of some very real
injustices in the way police use drug informants.
I think the problem goes beyond the fate of the stoolies. Stop
Snitchin' seems like the latest episode in the series of bad
relations between cops and the people who inhabit poorer
neighborhoods. Cops look at residents as potential criminals, and
residents see cops as petty thugs.
but a rapper (or anyone else) saying "I'm cool because I like
to beat up women" is a serious problem.
No, that's just annoying too. When people look up to said idiot and
start to emulate his example, that is the problem.
Joshua Holmes|8.15.07 @ 8:54PM|#
Although the Drug War may make the cops-blacks problem worse, it wasn't like the relations were ever good.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|8.15.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Stop Snitching might of stemmed from shitty police work in
the past,
"might of"? "past"?
*rolls eyes*
|8.15.07 @ 9:31PM|#
As usual, most can't see the forest for the trees.
The War on Drugs has created a mentality like Communism did for
lying, like Prohibition did for filling our land with vice and
crime, like Thomas Jefferson's Embargo of 1808 did to the former
moral uprightness of young potash smugglers in upstate NY and
VT.
|8.15.07 @ 9:34PM|#
I can't think of much that is more American than non-violent
noncompliance as a means of protest.
I have a big problem with the idea of "Stop Snitching" as a
movement supporting or participating in witness intimidation or
murder. That being said, I agree with the stance of not turning in
a murderer or a rapist. Perhaps it will take an inability to solve
the crimes that matter to make people notice we will not consent to
this form of criminal "justice". The harm done by this system is
greater than any single murderer or rapist could possibly do.
|8.15.07 @ 9:42PM|#
...like Thomas Jefferson's Embargo of 1808 did to the former
moral uprightness of young potash smugglers in upstate NY and
VT.
A: They were repealed, for the most part, under Jefferson,
and...
B: The British and French were attacking American ships in an
effort to attack each other.
I seriously doubt we had unregulated trade with Germany during
WWII.
Don|8.15.07 @ 10:06PM|#
I thought part of the stop snitchin stuff was about CI's, (confidential informants) that cops and prosecutors bribe to snitch on someone. and get a deal on their own charges. That part of stop snitchin I would agree with
|8.15.07 @ 10:22PM|#
Where can I snitch on some violent skateboarders? I called the tip hotline, told 'em about some skateboarders that were even smoking (not smokin') and got put on hold. 911 told me to call Dunkin' Donuts if it continued and they'd send someone out in a few days. What in thee hell is going on?
|8.15.07 @ 11:12PM|#
I like how you latte poofs luv to mac hard on the peons charged
with enforcement instead of the society at large who supports the
WOD.
Radley is onto something, however, due to political correctness, is
afraid to nail the true culprit here: Black Society.
Until blacks in the hood better themselves, they will continue to
be a pathetic, worthless pile. Blame the man, the WOD the pigs,
Johnny Reb, etc. Excuses excuses keep the black man down.
Nice to see a so-called libertarian wed community continue to
preach the socialist party line.
ta ta assholes. Go back to worrying about carbon credits and the
rights of terrorists and child molesters.
|8.15.07 @ 11:51PM|#
Where did any of that come from? Did Horst ooze over from Little Green Footballs or something?
|8.16.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Humor me Hit & Run forums, what's with the animosity towards Little Green Footballs?
|8.16.07 @ 12:33AM|#
Humor me Hit & Run forums, what's with the animosity
towards Little Green Footballs?
I can't answer from anyone else, but I have animosity towards them
because they are full of a bunch of borderline fascist bed-wetters
that think terrorists are hiding under their beds when they go to
sleep at night.
|8.16.07 @ 12:56AM|#
Gunter glieben Horsten graben glauchen globen:
All right
I got something to say
Yeah, it's better to burn out
than to sound like a total douchebag.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|8.16.07 @ 1:01AM|#
That being said, I agree with the stance of not turning in a
murderer or a rapist. Perhaps it will take an inability to solve
the crimes that matter to make people notice we will not consent to
this form of criminal "justice". The harm done by this system is
greater than any single murderer or rapist could possibly
do.
It's not a bad line of thinking.
It would be better to make sure to stop snitching on citizen-on-cop
crime though.
highnumber|8.16.07 @ 1:05AM|#
I believe the nihilist philosopher known as Mike Muir said, "Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make me feel a whole lot better."
|8.16.07 @ 2:37AM|#
Everything about the criminal justice system in the United
States is barbaric and corrupt. The entire justification for the
system has changed so dramatically in the past few decades. Police
used to be "peace officers", and prison was for rehabilitation.
It's still like that in some places, like Scandinavian countries.
Guess who now has some the lowest rates of crime in the world at
the same time they have the least prisoners per capita and dole out
the shortest jail sentences for serious crimes? The same countries
where the goal of police isn't to "enforce the law" and the goal of
sentencing criminals wasn't to "punish" them. Guess who has the
highest crime rates, most prisoners per capita, and longest jail
sentences as well as the DEATH PENALTY? Duh.
The police don't need any extra help making this the most violent
society in Western civilization. Stop snitchin'.
P.S. you don't have to be black or poor to see how evil the
criminal justice system is. I'm white and well off and I care just
as much as Immortal Technique.
|8.16.07 @ 3:01AM|#
Dennis: What do you think about Japan, which has both shorter jail sentances and a higher rate of repeat offenders?
|8.16.07 @ 3:27AM|#
"Actually, I'm going to side with Alan this time around. Stop
Snitching might of stemmed from shitty police work in the past, but
at the same time it kind of comes off as those people who support
Palastine's facist cartoon shows because Isreal's shitty
history."
"Stop Snitch" was spawned by the WoD:
1. End the WoD.
2. Remove the incentive for the police forces to steal the property
of citizens.
3. Stop persecuting people for behavior that is, at worst, a little
bit harmful to themselves.
As others have said here, this whole subject is exhausting in its
depressive nature.
|8.16.07 @ 4:47AM|#
Ending the war on drugs might be good policy and important for
invididual rights of all and especially blacks considering the
obvious disparate impact that falls on them, but it would not make
things cozy with the police. Many more blacks are in state prison
for violent offenses than drug offenses, and a mighty disparate
amount relative to their 5 of the US population to boot:
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600012003.pdf
It's worse for federal inmates of course, there drug offenses are
easily the most current offense that most black inmates are serving
time under. But the stop snitching campaign is not directed only at
the feds but cops in general, and more blacks are incacerated at
the state and federal level for non-drug crimes than drug
crimes.
It's a hard thing to say because many jerk-off racists will use it
to mean something it does not, but it's true that many young black
men are acting in unacceptable ways and much of their dislike of
the police comes from the mere fact the job of the police is often
to stop them from acting so (often for the sake of other blacks as
most crime is intraracial).
|8.16.07 @ 4:48AM|#
Meant "% of their population" of course. Stupid shift key and late night headache!
|8.16.07 @ 4:49AM|#
This argument annihilates personal responsibility.
It's almost like asking "Why do certain policemen
perceive most blacks to be criminals?" The sentiment is out there
lol. Why is it that any issue involving one of us (I'm black) must
be discussed beginning with the "root cause." If you did that with
the argument about policemen I made above you'd be labeled a
racist. I find most root cause arguments insulting...especially
when no sane person would even consider making the argument in
response to actions by members of other races.
The fact is the majority of people, in black areas, are not
"snitching" because of fear of retaliation by criminals in their
neighborhoods. The whole "not trusting the government" argument,
while enticing to libertarians, is a cop-out. Black people trust
the government to an extent no other group does . Any public
opinion poll will show you black people would trust a government to
provide universal health care, regulate guns, rear children, give
away free college education, give away free food etc.
|8.16.07 @ 6:32AM|#
Scooter,
How do you account for "Immortal Techniques" position? He makes no
mention of fear of thugs, but instead implicates the police.
By the way, your point about the black community trusting the
government is a good one.
|8.16.07 @ 8:52AM|#
It's not only the black community, friends.
Our political activists have turned many of us into criminals with
their legislation-of-the-day approach to governance. It's best to
avoid any contact with the police.
|8.16.07 @ 8:57AM|#
"I can't answer from anyone else, but I have animosity towards
them because they are full of a bunch of borderline fascist
bed-wetters that think terrorists are hiding under their beds when
they go to sleep at night."
Now is that any worse than the pollyannas in the libertarian
movement who think we started this conflict, and all we have to do
is quit fighting to win? The Libertarians were actually gaining a
little influence before 2001. They threw it all away in a mistaken
notion of principle.
|8.16.07 @ 9:06AM|#
Um, speaking as someone who has actually lived in a neighborhood
with an active "Stop Snitchin'" contingent (i.e, DRUG DEALERS WHO
SHOT EACH OTHER AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND STOLE ANYTHING WITHIN
THREE BLOCKS WORTH STEALING), I feel confident in stating that you
are completely ignorant as to what the campaign means.
It is a warning.
If you tell the police that you saw a grey Monte Carlo pulling away
from the scene of a shooting, you will be ostracized, and no one
will tell the police anything about the men that murder YOU. If you
tell the police that you saw two men robbing another, when those
two men come for YOU, no one will call 911. That's what "Stop
Snitchin'" means.
It isn't about "community mistrust" or any other asshat egghead
theory, it's a very real threat to witnesses that they have no
protection against violent crime. Especially here in DC, where the
law-abiding citizens are unarmed and at the mercy of the
criminals.
In short, you can theorize all you want about how I'm just an
apologist for the fascist police state, and you can extemporize
about DC's violation of its citizens' Second Amendment rights. Your
suburbanite audience will even agree with you, because to them,
"Stop Snitchin'" means that no one will narc them off at their high
school for the eighth of marijuana they have in their locker.
But, you should be aware that when you write articles like this,
about topics for which YOU HAVE NO CLUE, you are advocating for
murderers, rapists, and thieves.
|8.16.07 @ 9:36AM|#
If all of you campaigning against the War on Drugs would first install the flat tax and eliminate all government programs involving transfer payments from earners to non-earners, you'd have plenty of support. I'm all for giving people full freedom to make whatever choices, so long as they personally bear all of the costs.
Fluffy|8.16.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Some Guy -
I think everyone here would agree that the situation you describe
is a bad thing.
I think the argument being offered here is that when you
incarcerate a large percentage of an area's population [and take
away many of the civil rights of the people you incarcerate FOR
LIFE], and when you do this for several generations, eventually you
will reach a point where people stop cooperating with the police.
Even for the worst crimes, and even in cases where it seems
irrational.
If we were merely talking about witness intimidation, you'd see it
in non-minority areas as well. Gang members can assassinate white
people too, you know. As other posters have pointed out, other
gangs have enforced codes of silence and have intimidated isolated
populations in the past. None of them ever succeeded in making it A
BADGE OF HONOR among their victims to refuse to help the police.
The fact that this seems to be happening in this case argues that
something beyond the plain old Cosa Nostra model is happening
here.
I also don't think that this article is "advocating for murderers,
rapists, and thieves." It's more of a "See, I told you so," sort of
article. The state should have expected this response. When the law
of unintended consequences wreaks its vengeance on a stupid or
unjust state policy, the people who point at it and say "You
brought this on yourself," aren't "advocating" the bad consequence.
They may be being a little smug and unkind about the error that
created the consequence, but that's about it.
Fluffy|8.16.07 @ 9:43AM|#
"If all of you campaigning against the War on Drugs would first
install the flat tax and eliminate all government programs
involving transfer payments from earners to non-earners, you'd have
plenty of support. I'm all for giving people full freedom to make
whatever choices, so long as they personally bear all of the
costs."
Basically you're saying you don't want the War on Drugs ended
because you don't want to make welfare payments to people who take
drugs.
You're making vastly more welfare and Medicaid payments to the
children of people incarcerated for drug crimes, and to the
children of people who can't enter the workforce productively once
they've been branded as being part of the criminal justice
system.
Assuming that drug use would create personal failure at about the
rate of that created by alcohol, or maybe a slightly higher rate, I
feel comfortable in my naked assertion that drug legalization would
create a large class of people whose drug use would have little or
no impact on their life trajectory, and a small group of people who
would end up as homeless deadbeats. The question becomes whether
that group of homeless deadbeats is larger or smaller than the
group of people we're incarcerating now, at IMMENSE state expense,
and larger than the group of people whose life trajectory is
dramatically altered by a drug conviction.
|8.16.07 @ 9:44AM|#
@Some guy. Are you saying that you think the readers of reason magazine are suburban high school students?? What??
|8.16.07 @ 9:49AM|#
the pollyannas in the libertarian movement who think we
started this conflict, and all we have to do is quit fighting to
win?
Thanks for clearing up why we make fun of LGF.
Would you like to take a crack at showing everyone how well we make
fun of Dondero-ites?
|8.16.07 @ 9:50AM|#
"Isn't the police 'blue wall of silence' the most successful
stop snitchin' campaign in history?"
No. That honor would go to the Roman Cathoilc sex abuse scandal.
Some cops have dropped a dime on other bad cops. No priest has ever
snitched on a child molester wearing a collar.
Ed Piman|8.16.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Forget not snitching. I have made a vow to myself: if I ever to sit on a jury on a drug case, I WILL NOT CONVICT. Period.
|8.16.07 @ 10:04AM|#
Stop Snitchin' is all the First Amendment. Let's not follow the
gov't down the path of censorship. After all, censorship is
becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their
corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like
"America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and
fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he
proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC
buildings. Free Speech forever.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the
title):
America Decevied (book)
|8.16.07 @ 10:13AM|#
It's best to avoid any contact with the police.
Excellent words of wisdom.
I've personally been charged with a phony crime and saw how the
police lied and failed to perform basic police work, like talking
to witnesses, apparently because it's just easier not to do so -
and I was the one who was dumb enough to call the cops: never
again! At this point I'd feel conflicted over whether to report a
crime I'd witnessed (assault, theft, whatever). I'd never report
any sort of drug activity (but then I never would have, regardless
of the above events).
some very real injustices in the way police use drug
informants.
No doubt the WOD is a big component of 'stop snitchin' - beside the
fact that "prohibition causes crime" it tends to erase the
difference between consensual behavior and real crime.
And, as Albert E. famously said: "The prestige of government has
undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For
nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the
law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is
an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country
is closely connected with this."
On the other hand, this
article/paper/study by DuBois in 1899 is pre-WOD and yet most
of it could be right out the present.
if I ever to sit on a jury on a drug case, I WILL NOT CONVICT.
Period.
A woman in Colorado was persecuted, er, prosecuted, for doing just
that.
Anonymous|8.16.07 @ 10:54AM|#
When I was called for jury duty on a King County (Seattle) drug
trial a few years back, one of the questions asked by the
prosecutor during jury selection was something like "Do you believe
the government dedicates too many resources to prosecuting
non-violent drug cases?".
Along with a couple others, I answered in the affirmative. All of
use were removed from further consideration as jurors by the
prosecution using peremptory challenges.
I wonder if that woman in Colorado was asked a similar question,
answered falsely (having been sworn in earlier) and is now being
prosecuted not so much for her preference for jury nullification as
for lying during voir dire.
|8.16.07 @ 11:42AM|#
SWAT should be used only when a barricaded and armed criminal has taken hostages. It should never be used to execute drug warrants.
LibertyPlease|8.16.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Mr. Henry T., have you read the 'America Deceived' book? I
looked at the first chapter on Google Books, it looks pretty
lousy...
http://www.iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595385230&page=5
Anti-Wonk Machine|8.16.07 @ 12:18PM|#
The drug war has so poisoned many police-community
relationships that the police can't get cooperation from witnesses
to murders and rapes.
The facts of life don't emanate from policies in Washington. It
works the other way around.
If you were one of the types who lives in the kind of place that's
called a "community" by the press and government, you'd have good
reason to believe that you're less safe in the company of a
policeman, in any circumstance, than you are with a
gangster who knows you saw him rape and murder somebody.
The drug war is symptomatic of that. Laws are
effects.
Unthinkable, isn't it?
Jennifer|8.16.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Seems Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf has applications in modern times, too. The cops have shown themselves unworthy of trust or respect so many times, it's understandable people view them with a gimlet eye even on those rare occasions they DO deserve it.
|8.16.07 @ 1:52PM|#
"When I was called for jury duty on a King County (Seattle) drug
trial a few years back, one of the questions asked by the
prosecutor during jury selection was something like "Do you believe
the government dedicates too many resources to prosecuting
non-violent drug cases?"."
I wonder what happens to you if you lie, i.e. what if you, "fuck
no, I say burn the dopers", in a slightly more politically correct
way, and then refuse to convict once sequestered. Can the
authorities "do" anything to you?
Scooby|8.16.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Wayne, that's perjury. It's a crime. They can and will fuck you
up if you do this.
Screening for political views in voir dire is contrary to the
spirit of the jury system, but lying to evade that screening is
against the spirit and letter of the law.
|8.16.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Radley Balko's post above has introduced an idea that is
essential for comprehension of the "stop snitching" controversy
that until now has been conspicuously missing. However I think he
does not go far enough.
Radley suggests that it is merely mistrust of the police that has
resulted in black Americans refusing to cooperate in the
investigation of real crimes in their communities. In reality the
black underclass trust the police to act strictly according to
their rules of engagement just like any other army of
occupation.
There is no such thing as equality before the law.
The law exists to protect good people and
punish bad people, it does not exist to
protect bad people or to punish good
people. The reason the police are in black communities is
not to protect their members from crime but to protect white people
from the black people by getting as many of the latter into prison
for as long as possible. The long term aim is to eliminate the
problem posed by the continuing existence of the black people. If
the police knew for certain that a particular person had killed a
member of the black underclass, they would not want to prevent this
person doing it again by convicting them, rather they would want to
convict a convenient scapegoat chosen from their target lists. The
members of the black underclass know this, and know that giving
information to the police even on a real crime is dangerous and
likely to bring harm to others than the real perpetrator of the
crime. "Don't collaborate" is a better rendition
of the message than "stop snitching".
One can go further. One of the main reasons that there is so much
crime amid the underclass is that the members of the underclass do
not have the protection of the law. The agents of the law do not
treat crime against a member of the underclass with the same
seriousness as they would treat a similar crime against a member of
the respectable classes and would consider a suggestion that they
do treat such a case seriously as an insult. In addition a member
of the underclass who does not want to become a victim needs to
learn effective use of violence to protect himself.
As to "the war on drugs", this is an alias, it should be called by
its real name as "the war on niggers". It is past time to see the
discriminatory effects on blacks of the drug laws as an unintended
consequence of a policy started in good faith.
|8.16.07 @ 10:51PM|#
A correction to my previous post. The last sentence should
read:-
It is past time to stop seeing the discriminatory
effects on blacks of the drug laws as an unintended consequence of
a policy started in good faith.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245