To Tell or Not to Tell: That is the question

Tattletalers
How many times have we as young children, experienced being punished because a tattletaler at our school or elsewhere reported us to our teachers or parents? What is a tattletaler? It is a kid or an adult who for some personal reasons, chooses to report our alleged wrongdoings to someone in authority so that we can be punished. At school or at work, his or her motive can be for revenge or for personal gain, such as gaining favours from someone in authority.

On the other hand, a student who sees a bully in the school picking on smaller kids has an obligation to report the incident to a teacher otherwise the bully will continue bullying other kids also. Imagine how you would feel if your daughter was sexually molested by a student and another student merely stood by rather than call a teacher simply because he didn’t want to be called a tattletaler.

We learn as children that it is wrong to tell the teacher that a fellow student placed a pile of chalk dust on the teacher's seat. As adults we eventually learn that tattling undermines loyalty. General MacArthur recounted in his memoirs how he was almost thrown out of West Point after he refused to finger fellow cadets involved in a hazing incident. He said in his memoirs that his father and mother had taught him two immutable principles; never to lie and never to tattle.

The criminal snitches
In order for the police to investigate many wrongful acts in today’s society, their use of informants who are involved in crimes themselves, have become a necessary evil. Police officers and prosecutors do more than solve crime this way: unfortunately, they also destroy loyalty. To obtain evidence, they pressure business partners, life-long friends, and even family members to "rat" on each other by betraying secrets.

In reality, with many crimes involving those who were willing participants of the crimes, it is often necessary for the police to utilize such individuals with nefarious motives to investigate these crimes. Without their cooperation, many crimes would never be solved. Such informants are generally called by their fellow criminals as Snitches, Rats, Squealers, Pigeons or Informers which are terms used among criminals premised on a code of silence that prohibits them from reporting the activities of their fellow criminals.

In a new book called Snitch: Informers, Cooperators & the Corruption of the Justice System, investigative journalist Ethan Brown argues that the U.S. sentencing rules granting leniency if an accused offers "substantial assistance" to prosecutors conducting trials, have led to a proliferation of witnesses who'll lie to save their own skins. Defence lawyer John Struthers says he has seen many examples in Toronto of Crown witnesses, motivated by a reduced sentence, falsely implicating accused criminals, which only further raises suspicion of the validity of our justice system.

Chief William Blair of the Toronto Police Service said recently, "In order to be successful in investigations and for the greater good, sometimes you have to make some deals with some people who have committed criminal acts to convict people who are a greater threat to public safety. But as long as it's done responsibly and as long as the public is not put in jeopardy, it's a reasonable investigative technique to use."

He defends deal making with participants in crimes as a proper and necessary way to secure convictions. The problem however is that these people with unsavory backgrounds have much to gain if they ‘squeal’ on their fellow criminals especially when it entails complete fabrication of their information.

The courts acknowledge that innocent people can and do pay a severe price for snitches who lie when testifying against innocent defendants in order that they can get what they are seeking, such as reduced sentences.

One trial judge told a jury during a murder trial in eastern Ontario “………where witnesses have "unsavoury backgrounds, experience teaches us that sometimes justice is perverted by their conduct as witnesses. Sometimes they make the blameless seem blameworthy."

Most judges nowadays caution juries to be very careful when considering the testimony of informants who were participants in crimes and who claim they witnessed criminal acts or overheard the planning of crimes by defendants, especially if their motives are suspect.

Snitches in prisons
Inmates in prison settings are faced with a real dilemma if they see crimes committed in prisons. If they report the incident or testify in a trial in which they have witnessed a crime in prison, they may be murdered in prison and for this reason, they are kept in protective custody. Sometimes they are sent to another prison, often thousands of miles away from their families in order to be protected from those inmates they reported or testified against. This is one of the reasons why prisoners refuse to give any information to anyone about what they saw or heard in a prison. Prison inmates making such a decision to remain silent under those circumstances is readily understandable.

There is however, a moral obligation on the part of prison inmates to find some way to inform prison authorities of an pending assault or murder of a other inmate or staff member. The potential victim is a human being and is entitled to live in a violence-free institution. There is no logical reason why a warning cannot be done anonymously, such as dropping an unsigned note near a guard or other staff member. Further, if an inmate learns that another inmate is going to be harmed in any way, he should if at all possible, inform that inmate of the impending danger so that the potential victim can take steps to seek protection from the prison staff.

The ordinary citizen informants
There's also a distinction drawn from an ordinary citizen who tells police about a shooting of an innocent bystander, such as an 11-year-old boy who in the summer of 2007 became Toronto's youngest homicide by gunfire or the 15-year-old girl who was shot on Yonge Street in Toronto in 2005. In the words of U.S. hip hop mogul Damon Dash, “It's not snitching if you're someone who hasn't committed to the game.” A youth worker added, "A mother who witnesses a shooting, is not a snitch.”

If a rapist enters your home and rapes your wife and he escapes and later he is caught and you are asked to identify him, are you going to remain silent? I think not. Are you a snitch? No. You are a victim who has every right to state what you saw and heard. Not even criminals will fault you for testifying in court what you saw and heard with respect to the rape of your wife.

Sometimes the police will ask a private citizen to report on the activities of a criminal. When he reports to his handlers what he sees and hears, is he a snitch? No, he is an ordinary citizen who is called upon by police authorities to help prevent crime and provide proof of a crime being committed. Usually the private citizens called upon to do this service are chosen because they happen to be in a position of being able to aquire the information to prevent a crime or provide proof of a crime having been committed, or being committed or about to be committed. Such examples of citizens who cooperate with the police can include employees in a firm, an acquaintance of a criminal or even a neighbour.

There are instances when lovers or former lovers are called upon by the police to provide information about the alleged wrongdoing of their lovers or former lovers. However, it appears that in most cases, such cooperation is hard to obtain unless the police are using a possible charge against the informant as a means of enticing the informant to cooperate.

David Kaczynski, who furnished information to the authorities in the Unabomber case that led to the arrest of his brother, was not universally hailed. Family loyalty was seen by some as a more important consideration to society than putting a serial bomber out of commission. The majority of the population however believed that David Kaczynski did the right thing for two reasons; the first being that a serial killer was put away for the murders he committed and second, and this is the most important reason, the public was protect from this serial killer.

Persons who cannot repeat what they are told
A spouse cannot testify what the other spouse said while they live together or while they lived together in the past. What is said to a lawyer by a suspect or defendant facing a criminal trial cannot be disclosed to anyone however, if a person tells his lawyer about a crime he is about to commit, the lawyer has a legal obligation to inform the police. What is said to a psychiatrist, psychologist or a medical doctor is privileged and can only be disclosed to anyone else if the patient gives his written authority. Despite the belief that Catholic priests are protected by law not to disclose what is said to them in the confessional, no such law exists. However, it is the practice everywhere that a confession is privileged because to force a priest to disclose what was said in the confessional would place the priest in a very precarious position with his Church and it is for this reason that no court will order a priest to disclose what he heard in the confessional. If a person confesses to a crime outside of the confessional, the priest can disclose what he was told.

Summary
It is wrong for citizens to ignore the criminal activities of criminals when they see a crime being committed in front of them. To report such crimes is not being a snitch; it is being a responsible citizen who cares about the wellbeing of his community. At the same time, we must appreciate the fear that such citizens may have about the risks they may incure and not condemn then for remaining silent. To shame such citizens under those circumstances is to bring shame upon ourselves.