Answer :
Snitch testimony is when an informant fabricates information in exchange for benefits, which can be problematic and lead to wrongful convictions. It undermines the judicial process and raises ethical concerns due to the potential for deception. Distinguishing between honest eyewitnesses and informants who intentionally deceive is crucial for justice. So the correct option is (c) snitch testimony.
If an informant serving time or awaiting sentencing fabricates stories to support a prosecutor's theory in exchange for some benefit, this is considered snitch testimony. Such practices can be highly problematic and may lead to wrongful convictions if the informant's false information is used as evidence. The ethical concerns with snitch testimony arise from the potential for informants to lie in order to receive lighter sentences or other personal advantages, which undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
In scenarios like the one described in the question, where law enforcement lacks sufficient evidence to convict on a principal charge, they may resort to plea bargains and using informants for a conviction on lesser charges. This is often a complex and controversial facet of legal strategy, as it involves weighing the value of an informant's testimony against the risk that it may be unreliable or outright false.
It's important to differentiate between an honest but mistaken eyewitness, whose memory might be inadvertently altered by police questioning, and an informant who intentionally deceives to gain some advantage. The legal system must vigilantly guard against such abuses of the process to maintain justice and fairness. So the correct option is (c) snitch testimony.
