Why is there a no-snitch mentality amongst victims?

There seems to be a do not snitch mentality everywhere which unfortunately is a sign of our current times.

In Cape Town, South Africa, the police can tick off a number of cases that have been impeded because witnesses won't talk. Other Cape towns have also not been spared. For example, in the early morning hours of July 6, 2008, a fight broke out behind the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council headquarters building. In the midst of the struggle, a 20-year-old member of the Narragansett tribe, in town for the annual Wampanoag powwow, was stabbed in the back. About 20 to 30 people are believed to have witnessed the assault. The name of the supposed perpetrator quickly circulated around town, yet there have been no arrests because the police were not receiving the cooperation they need to close the case.

Consider the case where a 22-year-old man in Hyannis, Massachusetts was stabbed during a fight in August 2008. When police questioned the witnesses in the West Main Street apartment, where the stabbing took place, some laughed, refusing to admit they'd seen a thing. The next afternoon, one of the witnesses to that assault was taken to the hospital with three stab wounds to his back after an unrelated fight on Murray Way. While witnesses described the assault to police, the victim told doctors at the hospital that he fell off his bike onto shards of glass.

In Newport News, Virginia, 30 people were killed in 2007 — double the number from the year before. Most of the deaths were in the East End neighborhood, a predominantly poor section of town, and police have blamed the no-snitching culture for leaving many of the cases unsolved.

Consider these cases from the files of the Barnstable, Massachusetts Police Department.

In the first seven months of this year, as many as 64 Barnstable Police Department cases were dismissed in district court because victims failed to cooperate, for one reason or another.

For example, in April 2007, three suspects were charged with assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and armed robbery after they were caught on surveillance video beating up and robbing an adult male in Hyannis. The case was ultimately dismissed because the victim refused to testify against the suspects, telling police he feared retaliation by associates of the three individuals.

In June 2007, two females were charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, breaking and entering, and larceny from property after allegedly assaulting an 18-year-old female in Hyannis and stealing her purse and blackberry from her car while the assault was going on. The incident was witnessed by four people, but none cooperated with police - two of the witnesses were armed robbery suspects in the April assault. As a result of intimidation and threats, the victim refused to go forward in court and the case was dismissed.

In September 2007, an adult female was charged with armed assault with intent to murder after allegedly slashing another adult female in the face with a razor knife in Centerville, Massachusetts The victim initially cooperated with Barnstable police, but when the case went to court, she refused to testify and the charges were dismissed.

In the first seven months of this year, 64 Barnstable Police Department cases were dismissed in district court because victims failed to cooperate, for one reason or another.

In April 2007, three suspects were charged with assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and armed robbery after they were caught on surveillance video beating up and robbing an adult male in Hyannis. The case was ultimately dismissed because the victim refused to testify against the suspects, telling police he feared retaliation by associates of the three individuals.

In June 2007, two females were charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, breaking and entering, and larceny from property after allegedly assaulting an 18-year-old female in Hyannis and stealing her purse and blackberry from her car while the assault was going on. The incident was witnessed by four people, but none cooperated with police - two of the witnesses were armed robbery suspects in the April assault. As a result of intimidation and threats, the victim refused to go forward in court and the case was dismissed.

In September 2007, an adult female was charged with armed assault with intent to murder after allegedly slashing another adult female in the face with a razor knife in Centerville. The victim initially cooperated with police, but when the case went to court, she refused to testify and the charges were dismissed.

In New Bedford, Massachusetts, four witnesses to the 2008 New Year's day murder of a 15-year-old boy were charged with lying to and misleading detectives in the course of the investigation. Though there were many apparent witnesses, it wasn't until 40 people were brought to the grand jury and 100 interviewed that a local man was charged seven weeks after the house party shooting. New Bedford police Lt. Jeffrey Silva said. "Any time there are witnesses to a crime that either don't come forward, or worse, send the police spiraling in an opposite direction, it's a waste of investigatory resources and it's that much longer that justice is delayed."

A 35-year-old Bremerton, Washington man was stabbed three times near Lions Park on Lebo Boulevard, in November 2008. A police officer met the man at the hospital while he was being treated for stabbings, once in the neck and twice in the side. He was uncooperative in giving them information as to who stabbed him other than to say that it was related to a disagreement he had with people he knew in prison.

In Harwich, Massachusetts last year, a young woman was sexually assaulted in a brutal attack at a party. It took police more than a month to make the case. Though there were believed to be many witnesses, no one came forward at first — no party-goer wanted to be branded as a snitch. Harwich Police Chief William Mason said. "This don't snitch, don't tell policy is always good unless you're the victim. When you're the victim, you want everybody to come forward to help protect you. You can't have it both ways."

Adult kidnappings appear to be on the rise in Edmonton, but the cases are rarely publicized, and are almost never heard in court. The victims are seldom interested in setting foot in a courtroom, even if they were tortured.

The trouble is, many people are victims know who committed them but they don't want to get involved and one of the main reasons is they are afraid to get involved. This is especially indicative of people living in a country illegally.

As an example, a construction worker is owed months' worth of wages from his deadbeat boss. A domestic worker is robbed and assaulted on the street. A bystander witnesses a shooting on her block. But none comes forward to police, fearful of being the one who gets "caught." It's a conundrum faced by many crime victims and witnesses who, because they're among the estimated 200,000 people living in Canada without legal status, are afraid to call police for help — or come forward to tell what they know about a crime. But that may change after the Toronto Police Services Board meets today to vote on a proposal endorsing a "don't ask, don't tell" approach that would restrain police from demanding that victims and witnesses reveal their immigration status. This should also apply in the courts also.

This code of silence — or wall of silence whether from a sense of police distrust or out of fear of criminal retaliation — has emerged as a substantial impediment to local police investigations.

When cases go unsolved, there is a perceived lack of justice for victims' families and a fear that potentially violent offenders are remaining on the streets, said Sean Varano, an assistant professor at Northeastern University who has studied gangs and violent crimes. He further said, "The reality is the vast majority of criminal investigations are solved through a witness or third party who has direct knowledge telling the police. When those sources dry up, it's extraordinarily difficult, sometimes even impossible, for police to solve a crime."

The origins of ‘Stop Snitchin'’ goes back to 2004 when a DVD began circulating in the Baltimore area that threatened violence against anyone who reported crimes to police. Soon after, T-shirts emblazoned with the mantra hit the streets. But what may have started as a counter-culture fad has become an investigatory roadblock for police across the country. The issue also filtered through Mashpee High School after a string of bomb threats in 2006. A parent reported that students wearing "Stop Snitching" T-shirts were verbally and physically intimidating other students into not talking.

The police more often than not in most homicides have suspects and they for the most part know who did it, but without people coming forward and having all the information the police need to go to court, the crimes are not solved, so an arrest isn’t made and the perpetrator gets off free.

There are other reasons witnesses and victims don't talk to law enforcement, from apathy to disenchantment with the legal system, but the "stop snitching" subculture is often to blame, including in the recent stabbings and shootings.

I suppose the police could force the witnesses to comply with their wishes to give particulars as to the shootings and stabbings they witness. But to do this, his non-cooperation should be treated as a criminal act and the victim should be made to testify in court. Hold their feet to the fire in this manner and they'll talk pretty quickly. This is an issue of public safety. Citizens, whether or not they are victims or witnesses have a duty to others to prevent crime and the only way that they can prevent crime is to report it.

We live by the rule of law, and I for one don't intend to give criminals the right to do as they please...even if it's to each other. Do any of my readers really think that some hood should have the right to intimidate anyone they want? When they do it to each other without punishment, it only encourages them to believe they can do it to the rest of us.

Society doesn’t want criminals who think they can stab or shoot others and get away with it. Our neighborhoods deserve better than to have anyone turn their backs on safety issues. If innocent people are victims, they should report the crimes and point out the persons who have committed the assaults on them. If they won’t, then pressure should be put on them to make them do so.

For example, three women were recently indicted by a grand jury in Barnstable Superior Court on perjury charges after giving false evidence and refusing to cooperate with the police in a homicide investigation. If convicted, they would face the same punishment as if they committed the crime they lied about — life in prison. If witnesses refuse to attend a grand jury hearing in the United States, they can be put in jail for contempt.

There are lots of reasons why victims won't name their attackers. One of them is the fear of retaliation. Unfortunately, that fear is very real, especially if they are members of a gang or the attacker is considered to be a very dangerous person.

Many years ago, when I began practicing law and was also an investigator with Legal Aid in Toronto, Ontario, I was asked by two police detectives if I would talk to three victims of a stabbing and their two witnesses as none of them wanted to talk to the police. The man that stabbed the three men was a very violent man and wouldn’t hesitate at all to kill anyone. The victims and witnesses believed this. Before I got written statements from all five of them, I got assurances from the police that not only would the man be immediately arrested and held without bail, but further, when he was brought before a certain judge (who I knew) and the man was convicted, he would be sentenced to ten years in prison.

Further, the witnesses wanted assurances from the police that they would be protected from any of the man’s friends who might try to intimidate them. The man was immediately arrested after the detectives read the statements and before his trial, one of his friends threatened one of the witnesses. Without going into detail; after the threat was reported to the detectives, the man who made it was told to leave town; after one of his legs was broken. No one else threatened the witnesses and the stabber was convicted and sent to prison for ten years as promised by the judge. Two years after he was released, some one stabbed him to death. Well you know that old biblical adage, “Live by the sword and you will….”

Victims and witnesses must be protected and anyone who intimidates them into not giving evidence in court; should be immediately arrested, charged and held without bail until the trial of the stabber or shooter is over and then the intimidators should be also imprisoned after they are convicted.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons why victims of shootings by members of a gang don’t cooperate with the police is that they want to wreak vengeance on their own. If they tell the police who assaulted them, and they hunt down the perpetrator and kill him, the police will know who did it. However, in Toronto, a number of the gang members who have been shot and wounded, have gone after someone they think shot them and then later, someone else shoots them. The circle is never ending.

Quite frankly, I don’t give a tinker’s dam if they shoot each other. If at all possible, I would infect one of them with a fatal disease and let them infect all their gang friends. The trouble with that solution however is that innocent people would also die. This is quite apparent when you consider that innocent bystanders have been shot dead by members of one gang shooting at members of other gangs.

The most important way to stop all of these crimes is for citizens who witness crimes to speak up. Once they do speak up, it is the responsibility of the police to protect them and if that means putting the perp’s friends in jail who intimidate witnesses, so be it. Let their sentences also be severe.

Further, victims of a crime should have great pressure on them to reveal who has attacked them. They should be assured of protection of course and that assurance should be real. If they won’t cooperate, then they should be arrested when they are released from the hospital and charged with interfering with a police investigation. Perhaps the irony will sink home to them when they realize that they are being punished while all the time, the person who has injured them is walking free.

There are some who will say that doing this is contrary to the victim’s rights. That is not so. Everyone who is a victim or a witness to a crime has a legal obligation to cooperate with the police because the real victim of all crimes is society as a whole. Society has precedence over the interests of the individual when it comes to preventing crimes.

Those who commit the crimes should be severely punished and taken off the streets for the protection of society. Victims of such crimes who won’t take the necessary steps to have their assailants arrested and thereby prevent further crimes by such thugs when they are in a position to do so, are no better than the criminals who carry guns and knives on their person and use them when it suits them. The same also applies to witnesses who won't co-operate with the police.

UPDATE:
On March 14,2008, two security cameras captured two men walking along the sidewalk of a Lawrence Heights housing complex in Toronto, when one opened fire on six young men, killing 18-year-old Abdikarim Ahmed Abdikarim and wounding the five others.
Toronto police posted the video on YouTube and made two quick arrests. But they needed eyewitnesses. Not even the five wounded men came forward. The case was withdrawn against the two men who were charged with the crimes.