Eric Rich did an important piece in Saturday’s WaPo on the problem Baltimore is facing with witness intimidation. Apparently, because the consequences of witnessing against Baltimore thugs are so high–many get shot or beaten–prosecutors increasingly have to jail witnesses who are reluctant to appear. One prosecutor said she would rather not jail witnesses, “but we need to get justice for our victims and we need to get justice for our community, so we do what we have to do. It’s not always pretty.”
In the abstract this statement is astounding for a host of reasons I’ll avoid explicating. But consider this: some prosecutors said that “recent years showed that nearly one of every three homicide or non-fatal shooting cases is dismissed because witnesses vanish or change their stories.” Where’s the evidence for this? If it’s true, it’s a major threat to the operation of a criminal justice system.
Being a snitch in Baltimore City is one of the worst things you can be in 2005 and one of the most dangerous things you can be,” Cecil said. He estimated that body attachments are used in at least half of the non-fatal shooting cases in the city.
Here’s an article by Loyola LA Prawf. Alexandra Natapoff about snitching and its institutional and communal consequences that may shed light on this. Natapoff’s article focuses more on the use of criminal informants than generic witnesses, but the problems are similar in some respects.
What seems so problematic, to my mind, is that there is a pervasive social norm that “snitching” is wrong. Why is the case and how did it become so? If snitching is wrong sometimes, where does the line between wrongful snitching and heroic whistle-blowing lie?
Remarkably, Saturday’s Post detailed another instance of this grey zone, reporting on allegations that a NYT bureau chief, Susan Sachs, had written the spouses of two of her correspondents to alert the spouses that the correspondents were being unfaithful while being posted in Baghdad. Assuming arguendo that the allegations are true — and Sachs and her union are disputing them — what on earth could be the basis for the NYT to fire her for this? Sure, it could create bad blood among her and the correspondents she oversees but it hardly seems like the kind of thing for which the NYT should be penalizing Sachs. It’s merely correspondence among private persons, no?
P.S. Did the WaPo improve while I wasn’t looking? About six years ago, I remember subscribing to the Post for the summer and thinking there was very little of interest in this rag. I even had their headlines emailed for a while w/nothing of interest. But now, I’m amazed. Saturday’s paper brimmed with good stories.
Posted by Administrators on April 11, 2005 at 10:17 AM