That dire prediction, at least, was what Crime Stoppers warned would happen when it argued before the top court earlier this year. “Without a guarantee of anonymity, it is likely Crime Stoppers programs would not be able to continue,” Crime Stoppers’ legal pleadings said, as they intervened in this unusual pretrial motion before the Supreme Court. To emphasize this point, Crime Stoppers referred to documented cases of “serious, and even gruesome, acts of retribution to persons accused of being informers.”Without a guarantee of anonymity, it is likely Crime Stoppers programs would not be able to continueIn an interview, however, Crime Stoppers’ lawyer Robert S. Gill said he accepts the top court’s view that this chilling effect was overstated. In common practice, though, if someone calls in with information about a crime, then Crime Stoppers considers their motives irrelevant, even if for example the tip is from a drug dealer snitching on a rival. Crime Stoppers is now going to work on informing the public that if they call in good faith, they are entitled to protection — but if not, they aren’t.

Source: National Post November 08, 2017 22:26 UTC