QUESTION: Crime and conspiracy rates have been increasing through the years. Whistle blowers, who are accomplices to the crime, reveal information on who the principal suspects are, in return of immunity from any punishment. Others, however, argue that such people must also suffer the consequences and be put to jail just like any other criminal. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons why.
ANSWER: Nowadays, people say that whistle blowers should be protected and others say that they should endure entire life in prison. Predominantly, I think they should be defended from danger but that does not mean they have full exemption from a criminal offense.
Whistle blowers reveal a great value of information. These people have first hand details that can support a lawsuit thereby, making them vulnerable to potential harm from the opposition.They should be protected as they serve as a trump card of the case.
In addition, these informants are vital to the resolution of a crisis. They want to expose themselves to correct a wrongdoing as they hope to stop the crime. Maybe, some conscience is still left with them thereby, wanting to correct their mistakes.
Al though, these people want to have full grant on immunity from the law, I reckon that they should still be penalized. Maybe they can receive a minor punishment instead. It is still a fact that without these accomplices, crimes would not happen. It would be unfair if there would be a full immunity. Imagine it if every accomplice will try to volunteer to become a whistle blower, they may try to use this as an escape goat. Overall, this should be studied first and should depend on a case to case basis.
To sum it up, I think having people like whistle blowers are of great importance and in return should be sheltered. Nonetheless, claiming full immunity is nonsense. I can accept though if their court sentences be lowered, these should be considered since, they can serve as a key to a major decision in court.