<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Monday Morning Jumpstart</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:36:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Freeze! Your memory, that is &#124; a public defender</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-8423</link>
		<dc:creator>Freeze! Your memory, that is &#124; a public defender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-8423</guid>
		<description>[...] Lisa Steele&#8217;s Law Review article at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799 is very helpful (thanks to JC). Powered by Gregarious [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Lisa Steele&#8217;s Law Review article at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799 is very helpful (thanks to JC). Powered by Gregarious [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gideon</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7894</link>
		<dc:creator>Gideon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7894</guid>
		<description>Looks like Lisa wrote this one too, but the Law Review article should definitely be more helpful to those practicing here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like Lisa wrote this one too, but the Law Review article should definitely be more helpful to those practicing here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gideon</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7891</link>
		<dc:creator>Gideon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7891</guid>
		<description>[quote comment="7887"]Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele's Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic - tailored specifically for CT.  It's at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.[/quote]

Thanks, I'll have to check it out tomorrow!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[quote comment="7887"]Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele&#8217;s Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic - tailored specifically for CT.  It&#8217;s at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.[/quote]</p>
<p>Thanks, I&#8217;ll have to check it out tomorrow!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JC</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7887</link>
		<dc:creator>JC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7887</guid>
		<description>Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele's Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic - tailored specifically for CT.  It's at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele&#8217;s Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic - tailored specifically for CT.  It&#8217;s at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S.cotus</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7753</link>
		<dc:creator>S.cotus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/05/monday-morning-jumpstart-19/#comment-7753</guid>
		<description>One thing I don’t recall seeing in this debate is the question of whether a police agency is cohesive enough to honor its obligations.

There are some small-time criminals who constantly rat to the police.  They do so for good reason: they get favorable treatment and they can practice their “lifestyle” however they want.  This seems to be a rather dirty deal: 1) the cops have a snitch that commits some crime but “helps” them; and 2) the criminal practices their crimes but betrays people.  This works out “fine” (and by “fine” I mean “brings about the downfall of society"), until a new cop comes on the job.

A new cop might not understand the “relationship.”  These relationships are a lot more complex than can usually be conveyed in a short police report or a 1 or 2 page memo.  For example, there may be an understanding that the snitch cannot and will not try and inform on certain kinds of people.  (But a new cop wouldn’t be privy to this part of the analysis.)  Yes, certain written protections are afford some (but not all) snitches, but they usually don’t kick in until after an arrest is made.

So, look at the situation we are in: there are defendants out there whose “snitching” is long term and in return for a virtual license to practice a kind of crime.  Granted, these crimes are usually “victimless” crimes (i.e. prostitution, small-time drug manufacturer, unlicensed gambling). is this really helping society?

All in all, it is sad that we are going down this road, and we need to explore the exact means by which people snitch, but I guess we are already on it and we need to seriously think about it.

And, I am with Norm: Representing clients does not mean waging a war against the government.  Lawyers must do the best they can for them.  But lawyers also must be aware that the government will screw up and might put their clients at serious risk of harm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing I don’t recall seeing in this debate is the question of whether a police agency is cohesive enough to honor its obligations.</p>
<p>There are some small-time criminals who constantly rat to the police.  They do so for good reason: they get favorable treatment and they can practice their “lifestyle” however they want.  This seems to be a rather dirty deal: 1) the cops have a snitch that commits some crime but “helps” them; and 2) the criminal practices their crimes but betrays people.  This works out “fine” (and by “fine” I mean “brings about the downfall of society&#8221;), until a new cop comes on the job.</p>
<p>A new cop might not understand the “relationship.”  These relationships are a lot more complex than can usually be conveyed in a short police report or a 1 or 2 page memo.  For example, there may be an understanding that the snitch cannot and will not try and inform on certain kinds of people.  (But a new cop wouldn’t be privy to this part of the analysis.)  Yes, certain written protections are afford some (but not all) snitches, but they usually don’t kick in until after an arrest is made.</p>
<p>So, look at the situation we are in: there are defendants out there whose “snitching” is long term and in return for a virtual license to practice a kind of crime.  Granted, these crimes are usually “victimless” crimes (i.e. prostitution, small-time drug manufacturer, unlicensed gambling). is this really helping society?</p>
<p>All in all, it is sad that we are going down this road, and we need to explore the exact means by which people snitch, but I guess we are already on it and we need to seriously think about it.</p>
<p>And, I am with Norm: Representing clients does not mean waging a war against the government.  Lawyers must do the best they can for them.  But lawyers also must be aware that the government will screw up and might put their clients at serious risk of harm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
