About . . . . . . Classes . . . . . . Books . . . . . . Vita . . . . . . . Links. . . . . . Blog

by Peter Moskos

July 17, 2008


The New York Times has an article about covering up a "Stop Snitchin'" mural.

The shame is that we need snitches... I mean witnesses... willing to testify. Too bad it's dangerous.

If we didn't use snitches so much in locking up drug criminals, I bet snitching wouldn't have such a bad name.


Dave H. said...

The "stop snitching" movement is a terrible outgrowth of the drug war, and is also a sign of what happens when organized criminal groups control neighborhoods. If people had just "stopped snitching" on small timers as a form of protest, I would support that. But in my town and many others, "Stop Snitching" has effectively legalized murder in poor neighborhoods. I don't want to hear anyone say that the police don't care about these killings. They probably care more about this carnage than many of the residents. Too many people think this is just the natural order of things.

jeff said...

I agree with Dave. We recently had a shooting in my precinct. Upon arrival of the first officers the whole neighborhood was telling everyone not to say anything. One of the more experienced officers’s recognized what was going on and immediately removed one of the witnesses from the scene. "Snitching" or not is just making the police officer job that must harder.