Calzaer

I posted this in another thread, but figured it deserved a discussion all it's own.

I firmly believe that there's something wrong with a society that uses the word "snitch" as a pejorative. There's no such thing as a "snitch". It's an attempt to shift the blame onto the ethical person who caught you, rather than take responsibility for your own unethical behavior. A person never gets in trouble "because of" a snitch; they get in trouble because they broke the rules in the first place.

Calling someone a "snitch" is something akin to a slightly modified Blaming the Victim fallacy, and VERY offensive.

Dr. Retard

Here in the Czech Republic, some really old guy (like 80-something) was growing marijuana for pain relief (maybe arthritis). His skinhead neighbor decided to call the police on the old man, because skinheads hate drugs.

I think the term "snitch" isn't pejorative enough for this tool of a neighbor.

Alonzo Fyfe

A more general response in line with the previous post . . .

Your objection to the word "snitch" assumes that all laws are just and that reporting a person for a violation of a law is always a good thing (because all laws are good and all people who violate the law are thereby bad).

But, this is not always the case. In some cases, the law is unjust.

The classic example is that of a person in NAZI Germany who is hiding Jews in his attic. The person who "catches" this person and reports it to the authorities is not the "ethical person" in this case. Reporting this person is quite unethical, and a negative term referring to the person who files such a report a quite appropriate.

Now, it is human nature that anybody who violates the law still thinks of himself as a good person, no matter how bad he happens to be. So, anybody who gets caught in violation of the law is likely to think of the person who reports him as a "snitch". And this means, particularly in a society with generally good laws, the word "snitch" is likely to be overused.

But the fact that it is overused does not argue that there is no such thing as a legitimate use.

brighid

Calzaer,

I think you bring up an excellent point for discussion! I would like to add that something might be illegal, but not immoral given the context of the situation (such as those mentioned by Alonzo Fyfe and Dr. Retard), but some things that are illegal are immoral, and somethings that are immoral are legal. So I suppose one must attempt to draw the line depending on the situation. I understand your point and very often the "snitch" get accused of being unethical for reporting the actions to proper authorities even when the action is clearly immoral and/or illegal. I too have a problem with this type of reaction. Sometimes it is ones moral duty to speak out and report, and other times silence is the moral duty one must undertake (as in the situation of harboring an innocent person from a corrupt and evil government, or failing to report ones neighbor growing marijuana for medicinal use for cancer patients.)

The danger comes in when reporting illegal and/or immoral activities becomes so stigmatized that it supports and environment where continued harm comes to others because of the culture of silence, such as can be seen in law enforcement (to the determent of innocent people, and good officers.) The same sort of coerced silence can be seen in cases of child molestation by family members, friends or even institutions like the Catholic and Protestant Churches, rape cases, sexual harassment, governmental abuse of power and corporate corruption such as recently seen with Enron et al. Sometimes the consequences are so steep (including murder) that those who should speak up are scared silent. This is the type of stigma that needs to be erased and the "snitch" should not be castigated to protect the guilty. The harm that could have been averted if only the stigma and the punishment for coming forward was not so horribly unbalanced, punishing the victim and those who have the courage to do the right thing and speak up.

“ But certainly, the bottom line is that a culture can develop around those who hold power which permits them to believe they are beyond reproach, that their actions will be supported by their colleagues, and that these type of instances will not come to public notice.” (pg. 8 )http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/Guide...3925Ethics.pdf)

A good question to ask ones self when evaluating a situation where snitching maybe be needed is:

"Is this behavior unethical or illegal? Richard T. De George, a University of Kansas philosophy professor who has written widely on the issue, says that unless there is danger to others or illegality, "whistle-blowing is morally permitted but not morally required."

http://www.css.edu/users/dswenson/we...IC/RATBOSS.HTM


Here is a good point I found in this article: http://slate.msn.com/id/21255/

"But since they are not being apologists, they are accused of being traitors. Is this accusation just? Well, not exactly. Who or what is being wrongly betrayed? There are two possibilities: One is that they are betraying the president. But for the betrayal of a person to be wrong, the person must be worthy of loyalty."

And on those laws that are immoral:

Martin Luther King said, " An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

Brighid

Calzaer

I'm going to put on my Lawful Neutral hat in regards to the more extreme examples posted above.

In both cases, the perpetrator is well aware that he's breaking the law, and is also well aware that there are people in close proximity who believe the particular law to be a good thing. They are still responsible for their own lawbreaking actions; the person who believes in enforcing the law is NOT responsible for the perpetrator's unlawful actions. Ignoring the law because you don't like it is not acceptable, except perhaps in extreme situations. But even in extreme situations you should be prepared and willing to take responsibility and the consequences for your illegal actions, rather than bitching at the person who turned you in. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

We cannot build a society in which people maintain a sense of personal responsbility if we insist on blaming others for the consequences of our own actions. Especially if all our chosen scapegoat did was infringe on our right to break the law.

Calzaer

Does nobody else have an opinion, or is this too close to home for a number of people?

echidna

No, I disagree, at least in part.

It depends on why the law / rule was set & why it was broken.

I’m sometimes late putting my seatbelt on so I buckle it after I’ve started driving. Technically illegal & technically punishable. But how serious is the offence ? No one is harmed & as long as I’m careful I would suggest that the wrongness of my actions is open to a genuine discussion itself. Should I be snitched on so I incur the $120 fine ? Nope, I’d argue that's snitching, but realising that others disagree over the seriousness of the offence, others would not. It comes back to one's judgement of the law's appropriateness.

But if I were to rape a woman, I think snitching on my actions would be a moral imperative.

Dr. Retard

When you're dealing with evil laws, then this can be a very important right, and consequently a big, nasty infringement. In which case, yes, make people into scapegoats. Use all you've got to make them feel ashamed of themselves for infringing others' rights.

livius drusus

Calzaer -

Snitching is not always a person following their ethical strictures and righteously turning in the wrongdoer. You are forgetting the classic all-time snitch: the jailhouse snitch, who gladly points the finger at someone else to get out of his own punishment. Obviously their ethics come in to only play insofar as they have none to speak of beyond looking out for number one. Such testimony can't help but be tainted by self-interest, particularly in this era of mandatory minimum sentences, and yet is relied on every day more by law enforcement, itself tainted by self-interest thanks to asset forfeiture laws.

The National Law Journal did a study on the use of informants and published a series of 3 articles on their findings in February/March 1995. I could only find Part One online, but there's more than enough material in that one article to cast serious doubt on the value and morality of law enforcement's dependence on snitches. From the article:
Some stats on the dizzying increase in snitch use:
Another aspect to snitchcraft which is easily the most disturbing to me, is when offenders are coerced, threatened, blackmailed into informing. Who knows what they'll say? Even if they do actually turn in people with whom they were breaking the law, how can you possibly trust that they're telling the truth about the nature and extent of the involvement? Like confessions extracted under torture, this testimony has no value whatsoever and yet is coin of the realm in drug war prosecutions. For a fascinating perspective on this, read the transcript of the 1999 Frontline episode on snitching which features several jaw-dropping examples of just how unethical the informant/law enforcement connection can be.

brighid

Livius,

You have made some excellent points, and thank you for providing the other side of the coin with regard to snitching. Can you imagine if some person implicated you in a crime in order to avoid his/her own punishment and his/her word was taken as fact, thereby condemning you to harassment, imprisonment and in the worst cases loss of life? I wish our law enforcement system was carried out with truth as it's ultimate goal, not simply putting someone in jail for a crime. I know many good men and women in law enforcement, but I also have experienced those bad apples and people who falsely "snitched" in order to gain a selfish end.

Also, thank you for the excellent links.

Brighid