Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[admin]

With so many instances of known or suspected police informants apparently evading prosecution for serious crimes whilst being influential in the dubious convictions of people maintaining innocence, is it time to outlaw their use or at the very least ban immunity from being prosecuted themselves.

While I understand that there are cases where it may be difficult to obtain certain information from elsewhere, surely affording persons known to be part of criminal networks immunity protects the criminal fraternity rather than protecting the innocent population. How many fewer crimes would occur across the country if police informants known to be part of such networks were apprehended instead of rewarded for information which contains an inherent risk to the wrongly accused?

[nugnug]

well i understand the reson there used but i think they do more harm than good now.

[admin]

That pretty much gets right to the crux of the issue really, as far as I can see the potential risks both to the wrongly accused and to the community as a whole far, far outweigh the potential benefit. I think that risk exists with any information obtained by way of incentive but when the incentive is immunity from prosecution you not only risk the wrongful conviction of an innocent person, but pay for it with the freedom of a guilty one. Where the police informant is not connected with the crime being investigated, that innocent person's imprisonment results in at least two people evading justice.

[nugnug]

well all nearly wrongfull convictions result in a guilty man going free.

but if an informers used as well that means 2 guilty people going free.

[Toth]

Some informants receive no special police considerations, no funds and simply inform to settle personal grudges. Some informants are out and out liars, some merely shade the truth a bit. Many informants realize that they can call their contact if they are arrested and most likely will escape any charges. It happens. Its a long standing procedure that cops develop sources within the criminal community. Its rather hard to solve crimes without information.

Its the jailhouse informants that are most suspect. Those who are facing serious charges and want to make a deal. They can want a deal so bad that they concoct stories.

At least here in the USA its nothing new at all. Cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges all know when informers are sought after because they give "good" testimony. It is the same way with certain forensic experts. Certain of them have reputations amongst the prosecutors for giving "good" testimony.

[nugnug]

well the 2 youses for informers to point the police the right direction.

or to get a conviction.

i cant see anything wrong with the former.

[HaveHope]

well the 2 youses for informers to point the police the right direction.

or to get a conviction.

i cant see anything wrong with the former.

It's wrong if its a wrongful and malicious conviction, of course.

[admin]

But what if you look at it from the perspective of society as a whole rather than individual cases? I mean, how many fewer crimes would be committed if we woke up tomorrow and someone with clout said, "Right, that's it, no more informants, all deals are off. Off you go Mr Policeman, you can start arresting people from within known criminal networks now." How much safer could the streets be then?

How many drug runners for example would not be doing so with immunity. How many people who've committed many serious assaults would be convicted for those assaults rather than be involved in the wrongful conviction of innocent people?

[admin]

Perhaps Kevin Lane's case demonstrates the point quite well....

Mystery files cast doubt over verdict on Robert Magill gangland killing

Kevin Lane has been in jail for 16 years after being found guilty of murder. But did police pervert the course of justice?

The new material, if genuine, answers many of their questions. Lane first stood trial in October 1995 with Roger Vincent, who was found not guilty of participating in Magill's murder by direction of the judge. A hung jury was unable to return a verdict on Lane.

Since Lane's conviction at his second trial, evidence has emerged showing Vincent had lengthy discussions with police officers shortly after his arrest. Statements shared with Lane's legal team by a detective sergeant, Christopher Spackman, also confirmed that Spackman had visited Vincent while he was on remand in HMP Woodhill

....

Logs later released by the police showed that during the original Magill murder inquiry they had received more than 20 tip-offs claiming Vincent and Smith had been responsible. They were well known in the criminal world and were suspected of having carried out several killings.