{"title":"黄铜戒指和红发继子:保护活跃的犯罪线人","authors":"M. Rich","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1998787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Informants are valued law enforcement tools, and active criminal informants – criminals who maintain their illicit connections and feed evidence to the police in exchange for leniency – are the most prized of all. Yet society does little to protect active criminal informants from the substantial risks inherent in their recruitment and cooperation. As I have explored elsewhere, society’s apathy toward these informants is a result of distaste with their disloyalty and a concern that protecting them will undermine law enforcement effectiveness. This Article takes a different tack, however, building on existing scholarship on vulnerability and paternalism to argue that society has a duty to protect some vulnerable informant interests. In particular, I assess informant vulnerabilities against accepted societal norms to determine which informants deserve greatest protection and balance informant autonomy interests against informant interests in avoiding harm.Against this backdrop, I propose safeguards to protect the vulnerable safety and autonomy interests of active criminal informants that most deserve society’s protection while minimally interfering with law enforcement effectiveness. The proposals include: requiring court approval for the use of particularly vulnerable active informants and prosecutorial consent for the use of all others; providing training for informants and law enforcement agents in minimizing the risks of harm from cooperation; and folding informants into existing workers’ compensation schemes.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"48 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brass Rings and Red-Headed Stepchildren: Protecting Active Criminal Informants\",\"authors\":\"M. Rich\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1998787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Informants are valued law enforcement tools, and active criminal informants – criminals who maintain their illicit connections and feed evidence to the police in exchange for leniency – are the most prized of all. Yet society does little to protect active criminal informants from the substantial risks inherent in their recruitment and cooperation. As I have explored elsewhere, society’s apathy toward these informants is a result of distaste with their disloyalty and a concern that protecting them will undermine law enforcement effectiveness. This Article takes a different tack, however, building on existing scholarship on vulnerability and paternalism to argue that society has a duty to protect some vulnerable informant interests. In particular, I assess informant vulnerabilities against accepted societal norms to determine which informants deserve greatest protection and balance informant autonomy interests against informant interests in avoiding harm.Against this backdrop, I propose safeguards to protect the vulnerable safety and autonomy interests of active criminal informants that most deserve society’s protection while minimally interfering with law enforcement effectiveness. The proposals include: requiring court approval for the use of particularly vulnerable active informants and prosecutorial consent for the use of all others; providing training for informants and law enforcement agents in minimizing the risks of harm from cooperation; and folding informants into existing workers’ compensation schemes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American University law review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American University law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1998787\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1998787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Brass Rings and Red-Headed Stepchildren: Protecting Active Criminal Informants
Informants are valued law enforcement tools, and active criminal informants – criminals who maintain their illicit connections and feed evidence to the police in exchange for leniency – are the most prized of all. Yet society does little to protect active criminal informants from the substantial risks inherent in their recruitment and cooperation. As I have explored elsewhere, society’s apathy toward these informants is a result of distaste with their disloyalty and a concern that protecting them will undermine law enforcement effectiveness. This Article takes a different tack, however, building on existing scholarship on vulnerability and paternalism to argue that society has a duty to protect some vulnerable informant interests. In particular, I assess informant vulnerabilities against accepted societal norms to determine which informants deserve greatest protection and balance informant autonomy interests against informant interests in avoiding harm.Against this backdrop, I propose safeguards to protect the vulnerable safety and autonomy interests of active criminal informants that most deserve society’s protection while minimally interfering with law enforcement effectiveness. The proposals include: requiring court approval for the use of particularly vulnerable active informants and prosecutorial consent for the use of all others; providing training for informants and law enforcement agents in minimizing the risks of harm from cooperation; and folding informants into existing workers’ compensation schemes.