Part of this job includes ethical and competent
performance standards. There is no room for error and every decision can be
fatal or flawed where someone either gets hurt or worse, killed. The stress
inside there is extremely high and coping with society’s rejects is time
consuming and frustrating. The job, however, requires and demands perfection and
compliance with all laws, policies and procedures at all times whether on duty
or off duty.
Errors in judgments or actions are often
translated into misconduct. Misconduct usually results in disciplinary or at
the very least, an investigative process that must be sound and fair to ensure
both factual and accurate information is gleaned in the process. This
investigative tool has been abused by the administration for years as they
engage into a process called inmate informants. Unfortunately there are a minority
of correctional or detention officers that are corrupt and abusive in their
assigned role as peacekeeper inside our penitentiaries.
Located within most jails and prisons are
intelligence gathering teams or criminal investigators [units] commonly
referred to as internal affairs. It is their job to act on tips or information
on crimes committed and gang activity within their scope of responsibility.
Today they are engaged in a most flawed practice that uses inmate confidential
informants (CI) to find out what is going on behind the razor wire and high
walls.
Their protocol is sometimes questionable and
their motive should be uncertain as they work closely with inmates to make
their cases against staff or other prison employees. Allegations are often
unfounded and biased but regardless of these flaws, they carry their weight in
the investigation to destroy an officer’s reputation or morale. Confidential
informants are rampant throughout the correctional environment. They thrive on
rumors, innuendoes or other gossip to spill the beans of what is perceived to
be a personal biased effort to degrade or humiliate correctional employees who
stand to be punished or even terminated from such a source even if the case is
weak or unsustainable in a court of law.
Confidential informant’s allegations are echoed
throughout many correctional facilities decimating morale and the fairness of
many disciplinary procedures. This information is mishandled by those who
engage in this practice and is used to gain access to information that would
otherwise be difficult to attain because of the code of silence that exists
within most prison and jail settings.
There are times where the accused may never
know their accusers. The manner confidential information is handled is more
secret and discreet than the manner an officer’s individual record is revealed
or evaluated as well as any statement made by a fellow officer. The reason investigators chose to use
informants is based on the fact that officers who report their colleagues or co
workers are often ostracized, intimidated and sometimes harmed by their fellow
officers once it is made known they made a statement against a fellow officer. Although very seldom rising to this level, it
is a most convenient reason for investigators to use CI willing to do the dirty
work rather than pursuing the case through interviews of staff and coworkers.
Secondary reasons given for using informants is
the fact that once a statement is made,[whether verbal or written] it becomes
very difficult for the investigator to catch the officer in the act thus making
it almost impossible to bring him or her up for charges of misconduct?
Hence the shortcut taken to use confidential
informants was brought to the table and sanctioned by those in charge of these
correctional facilities. The danger of investigator and convicted felon to
“bond” can jeopardize many cases and distort the truth. Deals made under the
table are hardly legitimate when the cost is the career and reputation of an
officer who stands to lose everything they worked for during their entire
career.
This entire practice is flawed and leads one to
conclude that those suspected of committing crimes inside jails or prisons can
and will be set up by these confidential informants that carry the weight of
being reliable and truthful for the investigators in charge of the case. The
manner many cases are handled are grounds for suspicion and doubt that these
cases are made on subjective materials and observations from a confidential
informant that has everything to gain for telling lies and offer flawed
testimony to “burn” an officer doing his or her job.
The bottom line is the matter of guilt is
rarely established by using confidential information or informants. What is
most damaging is the fact that once you are brought up for allegations of
misconduct, this will never be erased from your record and you are ruined for
your entire career leaving many no choice but to leave and try to work again in
another place away from the “heat” created by confidential informants who work
for both incentives and pleasure while burning officers at the stake for the
sake of “justice” inside the penitentiary or jail.
Administrative tools should not include the use
of confidential informants. If the investigative process was conducted
appropriately and according to the rules set forth in many organization, this
would improve morale and adjust the quality of fact finding in those places
where corrupt staff are a problem but are properly identified through a process
that is objective rather than subjective in nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment