Have you noticed how much the subject of snitching has been in the news recently?
There is the case of Carmelo Anthony's appearance in the Stop Snitching video. Anthony appears in a video that promotes the ethic to stop snitching to law enforcement. Melo argues that stop snitching really means stop the violence.
There is the case of rap diva Lil' Kim who is preparing to do time for lying to a grand jury about a 2001 shoot-out between members of her entourage and a rival rap crew in front of a New York radio station. Apparently she was following the "no snitch" code of the hood .... she was taught from day one in her tough Brooklyn neighborhood that you do not snitch.
Who can forget the Mark Felt story from this past summer? Was Felt a hero or a common snitch asks Bill Murchison.
There was the case of those Muslims in Lodi, California, who ratted on the father and son who had Al Qaeda ties.
Then there is the constant prattle in the news about eavesdropping, surveillance, informants and spying.
Whistle blowing. Ratting. Finking. Snitching. Tattle telling.
Most societies seem to revile snitches. Most parents teach their kids to not tattle tell. Often, however, we turn around and violate our own teaching.
Like last week. My son came running up stairs to tell me my daughter was hurt. Thinking she had hurt herself, I rushed downstairs to the scene. Turns out it was no accident. There had been an incident. The little disagreement turned ugly and she got hurt. What did I do? I needed to know the details. I asked the ones involved what happened. I received a confusing mish mash of information. I asked the children who were not directly involved to explain the full details of what happened. In effect ... to snitch. The picture became much clearer.
It seems snitching, or telling on others, is sometimes the right thing to do.
The Bible does not directly address snitching so far as I can tell. It condemns talebearing. Proverbs 11:13 tells us
He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets,
But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.
But talebearing involves spreading malicious stories and gossip. That is not always the case with snitching, though it easily could be.
The Bible also condemns idle talkers, busy bodies, gossipers and slanderers.
But what about telling on someone without malicious intent? Kind of like my children explaining what happened when the dust up occurred and I was not there to witness it?
The closest thing I can find is the famous story in Gen 37:2. Joseph snitched on his brothers. Interestingly, the text does not condemn Jospeh for snitching to his dad (Jacob) about his brothers. It just says he gave a bad report and then leaves it at that. Jewish ethicist Rabbi Meir says that the Torah clearly condemns informing on wrongdoing and points to the story of Joseph as proof. Perhaps, but you certainly don't get that from reading Genesis. Joseph's bad report is not clearly condemned in the scripture.
So what do we tell our kids about snitching? Is it time to go out and buy our "no snitching" T-shirts?
I don't think so.
I think there is a time and a place to tell on others because you want what is best for them. It all comes down to the heart.
Snitching is clearly wrong if it is done for selfish gain or spite or sadistic pleasure.
Further, I think telling on others is never a first option. The best thing to do is to confront the person in a spirit of love and not condemnation. In other words, deal directly with the wrongdoer. Sometimes, for whatever reason, that option is not available to us. If the instance of wrongdoing is morally "weighty", then I think it is a better moral option to tell on them than do nothing and keep quiet. Weightiness is a judgment call, I realize. But what I want to recognize is that not all cases of wrongdoing require the same treatment.
Loyalty is clearly a virtue, and I realize that telling on others is viewed as a betrayal of loyalty. But sometimes we ought to choose a higher virtue like love for a person and their well being, and do what is right by disclosing wrongdoing and providing an opportunity for repentance, forgiveness and restoration. Faithful are the wounds of a friend.
For a good article on this concept of moral weightiness, read Greg Koukl's article entitled White Lies and Other Deceptions.
Resources:
White Lies and Other Deceptions, Greg Koukl
Varied opinions on snitching:
When is it ethical to be a tattle tale? Rabbi Meir.
Why is it wrong to snitch on a friend? Ask Philosopher
The Rightness of Snitching, Michael Williams
Snitch! Crooked Timber blog
Taming The Tattle-tale, Focus on the Family
To me this whole question is just an illustration of the fallen nature of Man, that is especially evident in children who haven’t completed their moral growth. I think anyone would agree that it’s right to tell the truth when asked by a lawful authority (cops, parents, God etc.), no matter what the consequences. The assumption is that loyalty to lawful authority supercedes loyalty to any one person. But when the truth uncovers our misdeeds, being exposed as an offender wounds our self-concept and causes almost uncontrollable resentment toward the “snitch”. The code against snitching in this case is merely childish petulance codified.
In the case of voluntary informing, it gets more complicated. There has to be a line between what we should tell about and what we shouldn’t. And this line moves depending on what our motives are. I.e., as a child, if you’re mad at your brother, so you watch him until he spills something and then run to mom, that’s snitching. But if you see him kicking the dog, you have to tell. As an adult, the law provides a brighter line. I would withhold reporting unethical conduct or misdemeanors if I thought I could confront the person and give them an opportunity to fix the issue. But if I witnessed a felony, I would feel no alternative other than to report.
Actually you could apply this to children too. If a sibling voluntarily tells about a mere infraction of the rules, my response would be “You’re not my policeman, kid. You’re assuming authority that belongs to me”. But if the child does something that would be illegal for an adult (shoplifting, striking another child or a pet), the informer’s motives become unimportant.
Posted by: John M. | January 27, 2006 at 15:19
Excellent post! As a father of young children, I am torn between my desire to know what's going on and my desire to see a relationship of trust develop between my daughters. After all, they will hopefully have each other long after they no longer have me or my wife. I think you and I have very similar philosophies of snitching.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 27, 2006 at 15:37
Thanks for the lengthy comment, John. I appreciated what you had to say.
Interestingly enough, after doing this post I spoke with a friend who works in the restaurant business (as a waiter). He told me about something that happened at work. He spotted one of the cooks taking home a steak. This is stealing, but not exactly a felony crime. He is trying to form a friendship with this cook. He is trying to decide what to do. He is not going to snitch ... but he is weighing whether or not to bring up the situation with the cook. What would you recommend?
Rob:
Thanks for the kind words. I want my children to trust each other too. I don't like putting them in that position, but a major wrong had been done. It would have irresponsible as a parent to not deal with that kind of conflict. We do work very hard, though, at cultivating friendship and trust between our kids. We are intentional about that and have made choices with that in mind. Loyalty to the family is a value we talk a lot about in our house.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 27, 2006 at 19:06
Mr. D:
Mr. D,
I had a situation like your friend and the steak guy. I have a co-worker whom I respect well, and I found he was fudging some numbers to make our team performance look better. If I’d gone to management with it he may have gotten fired or disciplined, but instead I confronted him very politely and suggested what he was doing was hurting the rest of us, by establishing unreasonable performance expectations. The behavior continued until I had to threaten to go to the boss, at which point it stopped. Of course my chances of friendship with him are probably zero now, but I should evaluate whether we could have been friends anyway, after finding that his moral compass was quite different from mine. Now If I’d caught him embezzling or something, I would have had no choice but to immediately report it, although I would probably go to the ombudsman rather than to my boss.
It would be nice to hope that your friend could approach the steak guy with such gentleness and diplomacy that the man sees he is wrong, and gladly repents without holding a grudge, such that they could proceed to become friends. Possible but not likely. I think your friend should expect some resentfulness from the guy at being accused, and shouldn’t hold out too much hope of future friendship. Even beyond that, if the guy doesn’t stop the behavior, your friend will have to report it. Ideally the boss will investigate the matter himself, and act on his findings rather than just your friend’s accusation. Most companies take even petty theft pretty seriously and the guy will probably get fired. This will be painful for your friend and may bring repercussions from other co-workers. Please help him in this, and I’ll be sure to pray for him.
Posted by: John M. | January 28, 2006 at 11:57
Jeff:
I think you're mostly right on this, especially here:If the instance of wrongdoing is morally "weighty", then I think it is a better moral option to tell on them than do nothing and keep quiet. Weightiness is a judgment call, I realize. But what I want to recognize is that not all cases of wrongdoing require the same treatment.Now, you need to apply this logic to, say, Mark Felt. Was Deep Throat the "good" kind of snitching, or the "bad" kind, and why do you answer that way? What's interesting (to me) is that your defense of situational snitching is almost identical to my defense of Felt way back when we argued the morality of his actions. This makes me wonder if you've re-thought that position.
In any case, I think the answer to the question "Is snitching okay?" boils down to "It depends."
Posted by: tgirsch | February 06, 2006 at 17:59
"In any case, I think the answer to the question "Is snitching okay?" boils down to "It depends."
Sure. Some moral decisions are tougher than others. I'll give you another one. I think it is right to lie ... sometimes.
I don't deny that moral thinking takes hard work ... sometimes.
I think there are moral no brainers out there too. This is where you and I see things differently.
Re: Felt. I need to revisit the particulars of the case. It is fuzzy now. I would look to see if he had legal remedies available or if breaking the law was the only choice available.
There are times when breaking the law is a morally right thing to do ... in the case of an unjust law ... like with MLK Jr. in his letter from the Birmingham jail ... or in the case of Christians who broke the fugitive slave law of 1850 by harboring runaway slaves in the underground railroad.
As Augustine said, an unjust law is no law.
The question is, did Felt break an unjust law in leaking.
Again, it has grown fuzzy on me.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | February 07, 2006 at 20:49
Jeff:
In Felt's case, I'm not sure if it's relevant whether or not the law itself needs to be unjust. What's far more important (to me) is whether or not there existed a legal way to effectively end the crimes and injustices that were actively going on, and that he knew about.
Had Felt resigned and gone public, they could have launched an active campaign to discredit him, and he may have been just an afterthought. But because he remained anonymous, he was able to lead investigative reporters to enough evidence that they no longer needed him personally.
So to me, the question isn't whether Felt voilated an "unjust law," but whether he had any legal alternative for ending the injustice.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 08, 2006 at 18:50