How to encourage more police cooperation?

[Machjo]

When we consider that, aside from collaborators, innocent friends and family members are the ones most likely to know about a person's crimes or at least harbour suspicions, but may hesitate to report the crime or suspicion thereof to the police to protect the person from imprisonment, and that the police might never learn about the crime without someone voluntarily providing information, should the police be allowed to advertise certain offers to such friends and family members?

For example, let's say you suspect that your friendly and helpful neighbour brings prostitutes home on a regular basis and want to report it to the police but simply don't believe that his crime warrants imprisonment, that you could negotiate that any punishment will be limited to a fine in exchange for your testimony.

Likewise, if you suspect that your wife is involved in tax evasion, that again you could negotiate a strictly financial punishment in the form of a fine in exchange for your testimony.

Of course this should not apply for cases of murder, arson, or theft aside from tax evasion, though some kind of incentive could be provided even then in the form of a somewhat lighter pubishment. As an example, if Canada allowed capital punishment, that a friend or family member could turn him in in exchange for life in prison. Or the family member of a thief could turn him in in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Of course any such deal would be off if the police was on to the person already, but if it should initially find out about it because of that friend or family member, only then could he negotiate this.

And of course the police would even be allowed to create a website with a contact number that would inform people of what the alternative lighter punishment is for any crime if a friend or family member opts for that option vs. if the police fond out on their own.

This could lead to cases in which if a friend or family member erroneously believes that the police might soon be on to their loved one, that they might end up turning him in when in fact the police had previously suspected nothing about him.

We could even day that in such cases, the person would be protected from deportation for at least that specific crime.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Good luck with that.

 

[JLM]

When we consider that, aside from collaborators, innocent friends and family members are the ones most likely to know about a person's crimes or at least harbour suspicions, but may hesitate to report the crime or suspicion thereof to the police to protect the person from imprisonment, and that the police might never learn about the crime without someone voluntarily providing information, should the police be allowed to advertise certain offers to such friends and family members?

For example, let's say you suspect that your friendly and helpful neighbour brings prostitutes home on a regular basis and want to report it to the police but simply don't believe that his crime warrants imprisonment, that you could negotiate that any punishment will be limited to a fine in exchange for your testimony.

Likewise, if you suspect that your wife is involved in tax evasion, that again you could negotiate a strictly financial punishment in the form of a fine in exchange for your testimony.

Of course this should not apply for cases of murder, arson, or theft aside from tax evasion, though some kind of incentive could be provided even then in the form of a somewhat lighter pubishment. As an example, if Canada allowed capital punishment, that a friend or family member could turn him in in exchange for life in prison. Or the family member of a thief could turn him in in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Of course any such deal would be off if the police was on to the person already, but if it should initially find out about it because of that friend or family member, only then could he negotiate this.

And of course the police would even be allowed to create a website with a contact number that would inform people of what the alternative lighter punishment is for any crime if a friend or family member opts for that option vs. if the police fond out on their own.

This could lead to cases in which if a friend or family member erroneously believes that the police might soon be on to their loved one, that they might end up turning him in when in fact the police had previously suspected nothing about him.

We could even day that in such cases, the person would be protected from deportation for at least that specific crime.

I'd tread lightly with that. In all likelihood you'll end up looking like an idiot in the community and in court, not to mention putting your own life in jeopardy. In the event you do, do anything make sure you have 100% of the irrefutable facts first. The one exception I would make is in the case of actually witnessing the sale of street drugs to kids, try to arrange to clandestinely shoot the perpetrator and dispose of the body and the gun.

 

[Machjo]

Good luck with that.

With what? Getting people to snitch on friends and family members? It's been done before even without the policy proposed above in place, so what makes you think people will never snitch on a friend or family member?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

With what? Getting people to snitch on friends and family members? It's been done before even without the policy proposed above in place, so what makes you think people will never snitch on a friend or family member?

You're assuming (incorrectly) that I think people will never snitch on friends and family.

What I'm assuming is that the criminal law industry will never, ever, ever accept such limitations on its power.

 

[Machjo]

I'd tread lightly with that. In all likelihood you'll end up looking like an idiot in the community and in court, not to mention putting your own life in jeopardy. In the event you do, do anything make sure you have 100% of the irrefutable facts first. The one exception I would make is in the case of actually witnessing the sale of street drugs to kids, try to arrange to clandestinely shoot the perpetrator and dispose of the body and the gun.

Yes I'm well aware that with the example of the John in the OP, it would make me look like some self-righteous nosy neighbour, and an absolute a-hole if it turned out that all the women who were visiting him were just legitimate friends of his.

We would assume though (and hope to God) that the police would be responsible enough to collect proof first, like trying to bait him with a female undercover police officer.

Likewise if I believed my wife was evading taxes, that there too they'd investigate first.

Same with all of the other examples. In fact based on such an example, I wouldn't even need to testify in court since the police would have collected the evidence independently first.

Not having to testify might even be part of the deal in cases of suspicion only, though I should have to testify if i'd witnessed the crime itself.

But this could encourage people to snitch on loved ones precisely to protect said loved one.

You're assuming (incorrectly) that I think people will never snitch on friends and family.

What I'm assuming is that the criminal law industry will never, ever, ever accept such limitations on its power.

In which case those who want to snitch but think the punishment is excessive will likely just keep quiet and another criminal escapes, expensive especially in the case of tax evasion.

 

[JLM]

Yes I'm well aware that with the example of the John in the OP, it would make me look like some self-righteous nosy neighbour, and an absolute a-hole if it turned out that all the women who were visiting him were just legitimate friends of his.

We would assume though (and hope to God) that the police would be responsible enough to collect proof first, like trying to bait him with a female undercover police officer.

Likewise if I believed my wife was evading taxes, that there too they'd investigate first.

Same with all of the other examples. In fact based on such an example, I wouldn't even need to testify in court since the police would have collected the evidence independently first.

Not having to testify might even be part of the deal in cases of suspicion only, though I should have to testify if i'd witnessed the crime itself.

But this could encourage people to snitch on loved ones precisely to protect said loved one.



In which case those who want to snitch but think the punishment is excessive will likely just keep quiet and another criminal escapes, expensive especially in the case of tax evasion.

If anyone is evading serious tax, they are going to get caught by Rev. Canada. If you help your neighbour for an hour and he gives you a case of beer do you declare that? If not, I wouldn't get too gung ho about fingering people for tax evasion.

 

[Machjo]

If anyone is evading serious tax, they are going to get caught by Rev. Canada. If you help your neighbour for an hour and he gives you a case of beer do you declare that? If not, I wouldn't get too gung ho about fingering people for tax evasion.

Not when it comes to foreign nationals. Launder the money out of country, transfer it back into the country legally, and then say 'my family gives me money.'

The police can suspect all it wants, but it can't prove anything unless it can prove the initial money laundering out of the country.

Now to be fair, even if a spouse reports suspicion of money kaundering, the police might still be unable to prove it, but at least they can investigate it and try to prove it. You can't prove what you don't even suspect.

 

[petros]

Jeepers H Crackers!!!

 

[Machjo]

Jeepers H Crackers!!!

Never heard of that brand of crackers.

 

[petros]

Limited edition. Sunday mornings only.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Limited edition. Sunday mornings only.

They go great with wine.

 

[petros]

Paired with Blue Nun

 

[Machjo]

Jeepers H Crackers!!!

Can you provide proof of the existence of this brand of crackers?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Paired with Blue Nun

Clever lad.

 

[JLM]

Not when it comes to foreign nationals. Launder the money out of country, transfer it back into the country legally, and then say 'my family gives me money.'

The police can suspect all it wants, but it can't prove anything unless it can prove the initial money laundering out of the country.

You just don't want to get into sh*t like that! Much of the fault lies with the laws. You fix it by changing the laws to close the loopholes. The people who do this sh*t are pretty cute. Joe Blow off the street isn't going to stop them.

 

[davesmom]

For me snitching on law breakers would depend on the crime. If it is a victimless crime I would mind my own business and let the law deal with it. For instance, I know people who are on disability pension and have no disability. I would not snitch on them. That is up to the authorities to do their job and monitor people like that. Just try evading your taxes and see how long it takes to catch you!
However if it was a case of child abduction/abuse, rape, grand theft or anything of equal seriousness I would snitch in a heartbeat.
Most people will not tell on their close relatives, especially their children for breaking the law. But I would turn my son in if he committed a serious crime for sure. I want my kid to be a good person. He won't be a good person if he were protected from the consequences of his crime.

 

[bill barilko]

The French-aka Cheese Eating Surrender Frogs-are famous for ratting each other out as the Nazis found out during WW2.

Running occupied France was so much easier when letters came pouring into Gestapo offices denouncing neighbours, ex friends/lovers/workmates/all & sundry.

AFAIK they're still like that today.

 

[Machjo]

You just don't want to get into sh*t like that! Much of the fault lies with the laws. You fix it by changing the laws to close the loopholes. The people who do this sh*t are pretty cute. Joe Blow off the street isn't going to stop them.

The laws are already extremely strict but are useless to stop those who intend to go beyond the loopholes and outright break the laws.

Short of becoming an outright police state, we don't usually catch non-violent criminals or white-collar criminals unless they make a major faux pas or people willingly report them.

Between those two options, i'd rather family and friends report crime rather than have eceryone's rights and freedoms violated by the police.

 

[MHz]

The best relationship is both parties stay away from each other as much as possible.