Mark's post represents a pretty staggering misreading of both the tone and content of 'Snitch.' Allow me to clear my throat--which is choking on outrage apparently--and respond:

No, I don't think there's anything "intrinsically wrong with testifying against co-conspirators" nor do I think there's anything wrong with providing some benefit (ie, a sentencing reduction) to cooperators. As I stated in my introductory post here, "Of course, cooperators are a necessary tool in building cases ranging from drug conspiracy to public corruption and providing some benefit cooperators for assisting prosecutors is certainly reasonable."

My problem with the cooperation process is that a) cooperator testimony does not have to be corroborated with other evidence; b) since cooperation is key in receiving a "downward departure" from the sentencing guidelines (which are extraordinarily punitive) the temptation to fabricate evidence is nearly overwhelming because a defendant's life is at stake, which is all the more problematic because cooperator testimony goes uncorroborated; c) the mechanistic nature of the guidelines creates a common scenario in which retail dealers turn on other fellow dealers who will simply sell them a specific amount of weight to trigger the longest possible sentence, thereby leaving players in the upper rungs of the drug game untouched. d) the centrality of informants and cooperators has corrupted prosecutorial practices to the point where investigative work takes a back seat to simply lining up snitches e) broadly speaking, the cooperation process is marked by secrecy, a total lack of accountability and as Alexandra Natapoff once wrote, "unfettered law enforcement discretion."

And, no, I'm not at all "strongly sympathetic" to the 'Stop Snitchin'" movement or the notion of "stand up guys" (does actually bothering to interview the creator of the "Stop Snitchin" DVD--which just about every journalist covering the DVD failed to do--constitute sympathy with its message?) As well, I've always found the notion of adhering to any sort of imagined "street rules" ridiculous and I've been very clear in condemning rappers, street hustlers, etc. who do so. Indeed, I called Cam'ron's now-infamous comments on '60 Minutes' 'stupid and immoral':

Finally, I currently reside in New Orleans and am experiencing first-hand the effects of the low clearance rates in homicide cases. It's scary living in a city where, as Mark writes, getting away with murder is not very difficult. But herein lies the problem that I lay out in my book: the unfettered cooperator/informant institution and the way in which we've fought the drug war for the past 20 years (extraordinarily punitive sentences for small-mid level drug dealers which has led to an explosion in the inmate population) has helped foment distrust among residents of the very neighborhoods that need law enforcement's help most.

Put simply: the message of 'Snitch' is that we need both sentencing reform and the reform of the cooperation process (not an eradication of the use of cooperators as Mark suggests).

PS--How ironic that Mark would cite the use of informants among the KKK as a symbol of the federal government's success in its use of informants. As I recount in Snitch, one of the government's key KKK informants during the 1960s--Gary Thomas Rowe--committed all manner of horrific acts (including murder) as he worked with FBI while not providing much in the way of helpful info. about the Klan. Indeed, while Rowe was once hailed as "the best informer in the South" Rowe himself would later admit that he was essentially useless as an informant.