USE OF INFORMANTS MAY ERODE JUSTICE

Editor, the Times:

I find it troubling that the courts and law enforcement have such a
low opinion of individuals that they label them as 'organized crime'
yet consider informants as trustworthy, reliable and creditable.

Informants are not held in high esteem, so they are generally
protected, by being segregated in prison or, if they are not
incarcerated, relocated under a new identity.

Our criminal justice system has turned into a 'snitchery,' a
wholesale reliance on the worst people, with the meanest of motives,
to secure justice for all.

Law enforcement thinks anybody who comes to them must be truthful,
that they have seen the error of their ways and is reformed. Sounds
as cleansing as baptism: "All my sins have been washed away . . .
including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in . . . The preacher's
done warshed away all my sins and transgressions."

Altruism is not an informant's motive: self-preservation generally
works for individuals attempting to duck drug charges and a lengthy
jail term when working for police. There is also the financial
reward. Law enforcement - I mean the taxpayer - shells out tens of
thousands (of dollars) and so police hear what they need to hear.

It's time to revisit legislation to ensure that constitutional rights
to fair procedure are maintained and examine the excessive secrecy of
Canada's Witness Protection Program Act and its usage.

Our criminal justice system is based upon the principle that those
accused of crimes are entitled to and will always receive a fair
shake. Far too often, miscarriages of justice occasioned in whole or
in part by informants, and their unreliable nature, undermines the
system. How many wrongful convictions must there be before the use of
these informants is forbidden?

Crown counsel and judges must be made aware of the irreparable damage
that these informants can cause to the administration of justice in
Canada. Does the end justify the means? As a former cop, I question that.

William Perry

Victoria