>> It seems like kind of an evil move for law enforcement to put a target on his back like that.
This is actually a very old method of getting criminals to cooperate with law enforcement.
The FBI used to do this with mob guys all the time in the 1980's. Show up, arrest them publicly, put out false newspaper articles saying he was close to flipping. He starts getting heat from the outfit and sooner or later, distrust is sown and suddenly he becomes a marked man. Word gets back to him they put a hit on him, or things get dicey with the underbosses and suddenly, he's like a cat in a cage with nowhere to go - so he turns on his associates in order to save his own life.
Cops used to do the same thing with low level drug dealers. Pressure them to flip on their supplier by pseudo arresting them, taking him away. They'd drive around a bit, then drop him off without cuffs in the middle of the neighborhood in broad daylight. Word gets around what happened, and suddenly the heat gets turned up because now he was seen getting out of a cop car with no cuffs? Must mean he's turned informant. Same thing, he gets too much heat and feels he needs to save himself and flips anyways.
Fun.. I guess that's one way to figure out if someone is guilty or not. Either he's innocent and nothing happens or he's guilty and he dies or flips. The whole side stepping the judge/jury to go straight to the executioner part seems like it should violate some kind of law.
I think it is more accurate to say that this is simply a risk of engaging in activities with people who will kill you if they think you will tell the truth.
Yea.. I can see some people thinking that, but that sentiment kind of goes against the rule of law. If all of the criminals committed crimes that everyone agreed should be punishable by death I could see it being more acceptable, but if these are lesser crimes that wouldn't be punishable by death but where the individual could be killed by other criminals that believe them to be a snitch, having law enforcement risk a person's life seems to go against the rule of law.
>> having law enforcement risk a person's life seems to go against the rule of law.
Most criminals who engage in any kind of criminal activity are usually living dangerous lives as it is. Working with the mob? Drug dealing with Mexican cartels? Finance crimes with sketchy people like Jeffrey Epstein? Engaging in credit card fraud with Russian mobsters?
I would say a majority of profitable criminal activity involves dealing with some form of violence or violent people to begin with. Criminals know the inherit risk with what they do or who they're involved with.
Yes, criminals do criminal things, but normally we don't just execute criminals that are involved in bad organizations. Even criminals are afforded rights here and it is one of the things that makes this country so great. Having law enforcement decide that they get to pass judgement on criminals is an incredibly slippery and ugly slope. Without everyone getting a right to a fair trial, those that are innocent can be impacted as well (e.g.: this is why one of our founding fathers defended the british soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre [1]).
Why is it ok that law enforcement get to decide what punishment a criminal should receive? You don't think that has a risk of trending society towards a police state where law enforcement power is not checked at all?
Innocent people getting thrown in jail happens. Say the police give this type of public exposure to an actually innocent person and that innocent person gets convicted. Say a newspaper article reports on the lie that the given innocent person was cooperating with police and that article is read by a big audience. That innocent person runs the risk of being murdered in jail because they have been marked as a snitch by law enforcement.
The point I'm trying to make is that we have judges and juries for prosecuting criminals and deciding sentences for guilty criminals. You don't think it's a little bit wrong that law enforcement is side stepping that and deciding for themselves that the criminal is guilty and that they should get the death penalty? Iirc, the fifth amendment grants individuals the right to refuse to testify against themselves, but this behavior is effectively removing that right for the accused.
This is actually a very old method of getting criminals to cooperate with law enforcement.
The FBI used to do this with mob guys all the time in the 1980's. Show up, arrest them publicly, put out false newspaper articles saying he was close to flipping. He starts getting heat from the outfit and sooner or later, distrust is sown and suddenly he becomes a marked man. Word gets back to him they put a hit on him, or things get dicey with the underbosses and suddenly, he's like a cat in a cage with nowhere to go - so he turns on his associates in order to save his own life.
Cops used to do the same thing with low level drug dealers. Pressure them to flip on their supplier by pseudo arresting them, taking him away. They'd drive around a bit, then drop him off without cuffs in the middle of the neighborhood in broad daylight. Word gets around what happened, and suddenly the heat gets turned up because now he was seen getting out of a cop car with no cuffs? Must mean he's turned informant. Same thing, he gets too much heat and feels he needs to save himself and flips anyways.