An issue that was addressed in ULK that deserves a bit more
comment is the involvement or non-involvement of so-called “snitches” or
Special
Needs Yard (SNY) prisoners in any political movement and/or prison
reform activities.
The philosophy of the snitch is contradictory. I’ve been in prison for
over 16 years. I have done time in three states and I have seen the
hundreds of ways people have been labeled “snitches.” For example, here
in Oklahoma a prisoner is labeled a “snitch” if he files a grievance,
even on obstruction of mail. It’s seen as “snitching on staff.” Prison
administrators will utilize that to try and get other prisoners to
ostracize a person and/or otherwise abuse, distrust or spread rumors
about a person.
This is especially true when it comes to prison officials who harm or
abuse prisoners. If you report the abuse, you’re labeled a “snitch.” Of
course, when the shoe is on the other foot and a guard is harmed they
run to the “snitches” for information. It’s contradictory and it is also
what is called “situational ethics.”
Situational ethics is when a person uses a particular situation and
action to justify their immediate needs, be they financial, safety, etc.
If they do not like a person, for example, they’ll label him a “snitch.”
But if they have a friend who has done the same deed they will justify
his actions. It is purely situational.
The psychology of it all is baffling. But in the political sphere it has
no place. As a prisoner in ULK no. 13 noted, violence on SNY is
much, much less, and there is more unity on SNY. I can’t attest to that
myself because I’ve never been on a SNY, however, I do believe it to be
true. I’ve heard that same story over and over about so-called “soft
yards.”
Information gathering is a valuable tactic in the political sphere as
well. This is true whether it is the oppressed or oppressor. Information
can be used to protect or harm. How you utilize your sources can be
beneficial. If you know someone is a “snitch” or you have reasonable
suspicions, then feeding that person false or beneficial information can
help you and others. For example, if you know someone will run to the
cops and report you then the information you tell them should only
benefit, not harm you. They become an unwitting agent of good.
Lastly, prison reform will never come if you constantly look to others
to motivate you. Just do what you have to do, and when you come across
like-minded people - or even people who may not support your beliefs but
support your efforts - you can add them to your album of associates.
MIM(Prisons) responds: What this comrade calls
“situation ethics” we would also call “subjectivity.” Like s/he said,
subjectivity has no place in politics. We need to have a set of ethics
that serve the most oppressed people in the world. We cannot let our
criticism be swayed by whether we’re cool with whoever did the action.
This is true in all actions, not just sharing info with the pigs.
On the group or political level we define our ethics by our class
perspective. It makes sense for the COs to both persecute snitches and
utilize snitches depending on who they are snitching on, as this writer
describes. Similarly, we want COs to expose other COs for abusing
prisoners. In general, opposing snitching is progressive, because it is
a source of conflict and repression as people are opportunistically
spreading information to benefit themselves in the short-term. But to
take an absolute moral stance on snitching ignores the fact that we need
to expose the oppressor to the people.
The only point we disagree with this comrade on is that they say we
should only control the information we share with known snitches or
people we suspect to be snitches. We would push this one degree further
and say that we should only share information on a need-to-know basis,
and assume everyone is a possible informant. We went much more in depth
on this
topic
in ULK 13.