Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message and any attachment(s) are confidential and may be subject to the attorney/client privilege and/or work product immunity. This e-mail is only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail, then delete this message and any attachment(s) from your system. Any unintended transmission expressly shall not waive the attorney/client privilege or any other privilege.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Charles Butler" <ceb@cebutler.com>
Date: April 28, 2011 11:51:46 PM EDT
To: "'Beau'" <261penn@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Andrews Rich \(DOJ\)'" <rich.andrews@state.de.us>, <Steven.Wood@state.de.us>, <Diane.Walsh@state.de.us>, <brian.robertston@state.de.us>
Subject: Countering the "don't snitch" mentality
Beau - during our discussion today, it was suggested that our "big" problem - or was it "one" of our "big problems" -- is a culture in the urban community of not assisting the police in investigations. This may be an oversimplification and indeed, may be completely off the mark altogether. Nonetheless, to the extent we feel we need to address the "don't snitch" culture, here are some interesting perspectives on the issue. It would be quite useful to continue this discussion with a better understanding of what is possible and what has been tried elsewhere.An account of "You Bet I Told" - a program started in Rochester New YorkBaltimore using billboards and flyers to tout their arrests and convictions of neighborhood thugs:A law review article suggesting that the issue of no snitching derives from distrust between citizens and police caused by pretextual stops and investigative subterfugeExcellent federal digest of programs undertaken in multiple cities across the US. Second half of the report is a must read