When one appears to exist, check your premises. You’ll find that one or the other is incorrect.

I don’t recall why, but this recent post over at TheAgitator made me think about a gross inconsistency in our criminal justice system that I find curious.

Police officers and other government drug-warriors routinely use the testimony of known or accused criminals in forming the basis of their search and/or arrest warrants. This information is typically given on a quid pro quo basis, the accused receives a reduced sentence, a lesser charge, probation, or some other incentive, in exchange for his or her testimony. Herein lies the incosistency: The same sort of known and/or accused criminals, when called to assist the defense – is often laughed out of court for “lacking credibility.”

If some of them are “credible enough” to glean information from, doesn’t it stand to reason that they (or others) are credible enough to lend credence to a defendant’s side of the story? After all, if it’s good for the goose, shouldn’t it be good for the gander?

Which is it?