I believe in the case of Susan, whoever turned her in, it would appear to be revenge or envy maybe money.

She certainly was not a danger to society.

__________________

Yes, also trading in information to save your hide or a loved ones hide is another. The Authorities are always interested in bigger fish, and willing to give you a walk or say a relative or family member a walk that got busted if you could provide them with information leading to an arrest, and convicting on a larger scale than what they have you on. Example you know a person who the police are actively looking for, and you get popped on an impaired driving charge, you make a deal that you will provide the name, and some details off the person wanted on this larger scale.

They will agree to let you walk. Guaranteed. Is it ethical?

I dont know that I would describe it as "ethical" but certainly understandable in certain situations.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

I do not know if I am aloud to post this, but I found it interesting, and related to this topic.

Pretty sure its already been posted/discussed but I might be mistaken. You can ask a moderator I guess.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

Hi All

Stanley, even though the inmate has an Ad on WAP.

The placing of the direct link to this thread,would cause her personally to be up for debate on the public forum.

You can place her name since she is listed on WAP, and others can read and talk with you thru pm or email. This is to protect the inmate.

__________________

Stanley, even though we can’t get into her case on forum, I mean that kind of situation goes on ALL the time and just about everywhere. I will assume that isn’t the debate. If you are asking whether or not I feel its right or should happen at all? Well it really depends on the case because it can clearly go in both directions. Sometimes the state has absolutely no choice but to grant immunity to make certain a witness will testify in order to get the "big fish" as you put it. I’ve also seen it used when I felt it really should not have been and they were basically letting three despicable individuals walk in order to nail the one. This happened just recently on a case. It was a man who put a hit out on his ex-wife. You know how those go.....so it’s really subjective at times.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

I really dont think money woulod get me to do much although....hmmmm....

Money, no, I don’t think so. A reduced sentence or no sentence if I testify against someone? Well assuming that they are guilty and I am merely exposing them for the state, I would probably need to think it over and it might in fact weigh heavily on how much animosity I had for this person in general. Very often what ends up happening in these particular cases is it becomes a race to see who can "play ball" first with the authorities. I might decide the hell with it as I’m not coming to prison as a snitch, even if it spares me a few years. For the sentence I do catch, that’s every day I’m watching my back inside.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

On American Justice today they had the case off Frank Pauline. Frank made a deal with Authorities to provide information on a murder in exchange for a deal on behalf off his half brother drug conviction. The State ended up getting Pauline to confess to the murder, and his half brother testified against him for exchange on a deal he made with the State on the drug charge Pauline was trying to get for him in the first place. The DNA never match Pauline or the two co defendants named by Pauline. They decided to drop the charges against the two co-defendants and still go for Pauline, because they had made the confession. He ended up getting life sentence, but maintains he made the story up. Then a jail house snitch some time later made a deal with the State stating he had information on the co defendant in the murder in question that they the co-defendants confessed to him, and the State charged then again for a second time, again no DNA linking these people, and they were found guilty, and the first defendant sentence 100 something years. The second co defendant wanted to make a deal on his trial knowing he is going down on sentencing. The State agreed, but he had to confess to his part off the murder as part off the deal. He confessed to his part in the murder for a reduced sentence. It is a must see.