IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/crimin/v61y2021i4p1145-1167..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Look Who’s Talking: The Snitching Paradox in a Representative Sample of Prisoners

Author

Listed:
  • David C Pyrooz
  • Meghan M Mitchell
  • Richard K MouleJr
  • Scott H Decker

Abstract

Snitching refers to conveying inside and potentially incriminating information about others to authorities. In contrast to prior criminological accounts of snitching, which rely on small and purposive samples, we used a probability sample of 802 male prisoners in Texas to study the status, prevalence, acceptability and correlates of snitching. We arrive at several key quantitative findings. First, snitches are positioned at the bottom of the inmate hierarchy. Second, snitching is a rare behaviour (7.6 per cent) and even rarer identity (1.8 per cent), consistent with a snitching paradox. Third, about three-fourths of respondents endorsed contingencies where snitching was permissible, primarily those involving personal ties, self-protection, or violence prevention. Finally, characteristics such as age, civic engagement, education, gang status, and arrest and imprisonment history were associated with either snitching identity, behaviour, or contingencies. Snitching is a persistent feature of social life, yet violates a sacred norm central to many criminological theories, necessitating continued inquiry into its content, enforcement and consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • David C Pyrooz & Meghan M Mitchell & Richard K MouleJr & Scott H Decker, 2021. "Look Who’s Talking: The Snitching Paradox in a Representative Sample of Prisoners," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 61(4), pages 1145-1167.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:61:y:2021:i:4:p:1145-1167.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/bjc/azaa103
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:61:y:2021:i:4:p:1145-1167.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/bjc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.