Researching of Confidential Informants Research Paper

Ethical and Unethical Use of Confidential Informants

Law enforcement and crime prevention are highly technical tasks undertaken by policing units worldwide. The missions target identifying criminal deals and preventing them before they become criminal deeds. Lauchs (2019) notes that almost all illegal activities undertaken by gangs or terrorist groups involve lengthy planning, thus allowing confidential informants’ utilization. The “snitches” work by pretending to be part of felonious groups while secretly reporting the proceedings to police forces like the FBI (Hällgren et al., 2021). The method poses significant ethical trepidations, which affect regulatory objectives.

The positive side of using confidential sneaks includes cost reduction, community collaboration, and trustworthy first-hand evidence (Fiorelli, 2020). However, issues like “snitches” using the informant’s role to create money make the method immoral (Fiorelli, 2020). Hällgren et al. (2021) say that most snitches exhibit criminal history, which they surreptitiously extend while serving as confidential spies. Therefore, the unethical concerns involving “snitches” depict the use of sneaky informers as a way of promoting crimes instead of fighting them.

Advantages of Confidential Informants

Confidential informants work for anti-crime agencies by getting involved in illegal schemes arranged by real criminals. The spies’ ability to acquire first-hand evidence from the apparent offenders makes the method significantly reliable for the agencies. Consequently, using “snitches” to investigate misconduct offers substantial benefits despite several concerns. For example, informers offer a cost-effective tactic for countering crimes. Bunin (2019) says that most U.S. canaries earn allowances based on the quality of the reports they deliver. Such makes the deal less costly relative to the expensive gadgets and hurts policies at times required to collect evidence. Moreover, a significant portion of the informants in the U.S. faces other charges. Such individuals’ rewards involve leniency during their case proceedings, making the method highly affordable.

Drawbacks of Using Confidential Informants

Using undercover spies often promotes injustice and crimes instead of curbing them. Many betrayers in the U.S. do not act honestly and thus compromise the justice system significantly. Corruption among officers and racism issues also play a role in jeopardizing the search for justice through secret stool pigeons (Hällgren et al., 2021). The case of Randell Adams provides substantial evidence concerning the drawbacks of confidential informants. He almost faced execution in the 1980s due to false confession, some coming from untrustworthy squealers working with the police to secure illegal favors. Seeking a lift from Harris made Adams a target of false confession concerning the murder of Mr. Woods, a police officer. Harris assassinated the officer and sped away in the stolen car that carried Adams earlier. After being detained, Harris denied knowing about the murder case but changed his position after Woods’ colleague linked the car to the killing.

Harris noted that he was at the scene and witnessed the officer’s killing by a hitchhiker, Mr. Adams. The desire to execute offenders in the state of Texas played a significant role in the changing of events (“Thin Blue Line’ prisoner executed in Texas,” 2004). Harris was sixteen years and thus ineligible for execution according to Texas laws. Adams was twenty-seven and a minority, while the murder of an officer demanded execution (Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2021).

The situation led the prosecution team to use secret informants like Emily Miller, whose child’s robbery charges got dropped as a reward for testifying as an eye witness. The other false witnesses also associated Adams with the murder. Moreover, psychology experts such as Dr. James Grigson reiterated Mr. Adams was dangerous and execution was the best way to handle him (Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2021). The false accounts from the various confidential squealers pushed the judge to sentence Mr. Adams to death, only for him to be saved from it three days to the execution hour.

The Confidential Informant Agreement

There exist precise requirements for an individual to serve as a spy. Examples of agreements include contact maintenance with the police, seeking authorization before acting, drug abstinence, weaponry avoidance, honesty, and confidentiality (Bunin, 2019). Forfeiting the contact requirement implies undertaking illegal deals, while seeking authorization ensures the supervisor’s accountability (Bunin, 2019). Moreover, one has to avoid drugs unless a point were refusing to use such will lead to suspicion by the gang members. Avoiding weapon possession is crucial because it eases the officers’ responsibilities concerning the weapon’s control. The various requirements for becoming a concealed informer show essential loopholes that make the method significantly vulnerable. For example, the failure to look at an informant’s crime history allows many snitches to lead private criminal groups while working for the police units.

Furthermore, the underground sneaks method converts criminal details into commodities, which forces many of them to become crafty to continue earning. Bunin (2019) argues that many severe cases involving confidential canaries fail due to the inability to disconnect the spies from illegal dealings. Realizing that some informers lead private criminal groups often compromises grim cases immensely. Investigations at times also show informants serving as illicit deals’ crafters, only to hand in the tricked folks for money. The circumstances prove the existence of loopholes that often allow lawbreakers to play with the police and benefit through illegal deals.

Confidential Informants’ Reward

Using concealed information in the U.S. is slowly becoming a big menace requiring policy amendments. Usually, America’s policing units apply reduced and no sentence rewards to confidential spies based on the severity of their crimes (Bunin, 2019). For example, a convicted drug offender whose crime attracts twenty-five years’ incarceration receives a “snitching” offer and imprisonment term’s reduction to ten years instead of twenty-five years. On the other hand, becoming a “snitch” means removing imprisonment below five years, as Hällgren et al. (2021) noted. Nonetheless, Bunin (2019) reports that many offenders, particularly young drug convicts, never end their informant terms. That is because the young inexperienced lads easily fall prey to the established crime goons who kill them (Bunin, 2019). The issue indicates the significant damage caused by the “snitching” approach in the justice system.

FBI Disgrace by “Whitey” Bulger Jr

Whitey Bulger Jr’s situation shows the porosity of the surreptitious sneaks’ method of controlling crimes. Whitey is a former FBI spy who resulted in double dealing. The snitch led one of the U.S.’s greatest and fiercest criminal groups from the 1970s to the 1990s (Trott, 2017). Mr. Bulger Jr received prosecution immunity for working as an FBI agent, only to utilize the chance to become a criminal ringleader. The folk murdered hundreds of people; innocent civilians, police officers, and rival business persons in the criminal domain (Trott, 2017). His last conviction became a significant disgrace to the FBI, which learned that its reliable informant was a notorious lawbreaker. The point of drawing senior FBI officers, such as John Conolly, also jeopardized the agency’s integrity, worsening the situation further.

Whitey Bulger’s Death

Whitey Bulger fulfills the corporate adage that living by a sword leads to death through a sword. Bulger died at Hazleton prison through manslaughter deeds in October 2018 (Mitchell et al., 2019). The folk was bound in a wheelchair due to ill health when two inmates approached his cell and murdered him (Mitchell et al., 2019). Fotios Geas and Paul DeCologero are believed to kill Bulger because of their hatred towards informants. The case concerning Bulger’s murder remains unknown despite his family’s demand for justice.

Role of Informants in the Alleged 2020 Kidnapping

Spies’ saga continues to arise even presently, based on the reported planned abduction of the Michigan Governor in 2020. Sources from police units argue that suspects devised the plot to undertake the crime to revenge the governor’s lockdown policy due to the pandemic. However, the defense team provides significantly reliable evidence that the FBI-linked squealers initiated the plot, only to draw the other suspects into the matter (Beltran, 2020). Some FBI handlers have other cases to answer and no longer partake in the abduction plot’s case. The trial remains hanging, as the defense lawyers provide significantly reliable information linking the informants to the illegal plot.

The IG 2016 Audit of DEA

The IG 2016 provides several recommendations for the DEA to improve the utilization of confidential squealers and justice dispensation through the method. Part of the recommendations demands that DEA’s officers stop using private communication links to reach underground informers (IG, 2016). The regulation aims to end or reduce petty criminal deals between the officers and the sneaks. DEA should also revise the payment policy to regulate finances misuse and corrupt deals. Offering training to confidential informants is also a requirement to promote integrity in the justice system (IG, 2016). Lastly, the audit requires DEA to maintain an updated list of all the persons serving as secret spies at any given time to promote honesty and curb illegal under deals.

References

Beltran, V. E. (2020). The rise of white nationalist terrorism: A call for legislative action and reform (Publication No. 220352252) [Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Bunin, A. (2019). The case against informants. Criminal Justice, 34(1), 4-8.

Fiorelli, P. (2020). Snitches get stitches: An historical overview of whistleblower laws and perceptions. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 17(1), 10–17. Web.

Hällgren, M., Lindberg, O., & Rantatalo, O. (2021). Sensemaking in detective work: The social nature of crime investigation. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(2), 119-132. Web.

IG, (2016). Audit of the drug enforcement administration’s aviation operations with the department of defense in Afghanistan. (2016). Web.

Lauchs, M. (2019). Are outlaw motorcycle gangs organized crime groups? An analysis of the Finks MC. Deviant Behavior, 40(3), 287-300. Web.

Mitchell, J. R., Block, S. A., Hall, S. M., & Butscha Jr, M. R. (2019). Beyond the mob: “Varsity Blues” and DOJ’s expanding use of Rico to prosecute white-collar crime. Criminal Justice., 34, 4-5. Web.

Sorensen, J., & Pilgrim, R. L. (2021). Administration: Is the death penalty carried out impartially, reliably, and efficiently? University of Texas Press.

‘Thin Blue Line’ prisoner executed in Texas. (2004). NBC News. Web.

Trott, S. S. (2017). The effective use of a criminal as a witness: A special problem. United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, 65, 101. Web.