The BBC has put out an interesting article (by Rob Walker) on the problems of using accused/convicted persons as police informants. It focuses on US practice, specifically the plea bargain process and the cutting of prosecutorial deals. However, the article’s observations are also relevant for countries where accused persons may be “incentivised” to provide the police or prosecution with apparently useful information in exchange for a lower sentence. For example, 2012 amendments to Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act, which used to impose a mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking, now gives judges the discretion to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty if certain conditions are fulfilled. One of these conditions is that the Public Prosecutor “certifies to any court” that “in his determination” the accused person has “substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore”. In such situations, the accused person has an incentive to provide the police or prosecution with information even if he/she does not have any. To avoid wrongful convictions based on the manufacture of false information by accused persons, there needs to be clear regulations and an oversight system put in place. These should be accessible to those who may be wrongly accused, so as to enable their defence or requests for review, as well as the general public to ensure continued confidence in the system.
Blog Editor
Mark Godsey
Daniel P. & Judith L. Carmichael Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Director, Center for the Global Study of Wrongful Conviction; Director, Rosenthal Institute for Justice/Ohio Innocence ProjectOrder Here
Contributing Editors
Justin Brooks
Professor, California Western School of Law; Director, California Innocence ProjectOrder his book Wrongful Convictions Cases & Materials 2d ed. hereCheah Wui Ling
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of SingaporeLiza Dietrich
Research and Writing Specialist & Outreach Program Coordinator for the Ohio Innocence ProjectDaniel Ehighalua
Nigerian BarristerJessica S. Henry
Associate Professor of Justice Studies, Montclair UniversityC Ronald Huff
Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and Sociology, University of California-IrvinePhil Locke
Science and Technology Advisor, Ohio Innocence Project and Duke Law Wrongful Convictions ClinicDr. Carole McCartney
Reader in Law, Faculty of Business and Law, Northumbria UniversityNancy Petro
Author and Advocate Order her book False Justice hereKana Sasakura
Professor, Faculty of Law, Konan University Innocence Project JapanDr. Robert Schehr
Professor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director, Arizona Innocence ProjectShiyuan Huang
Associate Professor, Shandong University Law School; Visiting Scholar, University of Cincinnati College of LawUlf Stridbeck
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, NorwayMartin Yant
Author and Private Investigator Order his book Presumed Guilty here
“clear regulations and an oversight system”, yes and an oversight board that is neither appointed by a politically elected person or elected to the position. To be free of influence, it must be a citizen based volunteer group.