"THE MARCH OF FOLLY" By Barbara Tuchman

I began to re-read this book (originally published in 1984, now available as an e-book on Bookbub for $1.99) and realized that its theme fits in nicely with the one that I blabbered about (maybe it should be “bloggered”); that is, the common folly of people who act against their best interests. [See my posts on this blog relating to "Borenstein's Law."]

In trying to explain to my colleagues in criminal defense why our clients act so recklessly, not just in committing crimes, but in doing so in a manner making it likely that they will be caught, and then dealing with the police and their lawyers in the same foolish, self-destructive way, I concluded that it was not abnormal human behavior — but rather, quite common — to act that way. The innocent, too, often act in ways that make them appear to be guilty, usually out of distrust, fear, or ignorance of the system.

Using well-known examples, I proved that even people who are intelligent, worldly, successful and rich fall prey to the human frailty of acting contrary to their best interests, often resulting in their downfall.

In studying the problem, I came across several theories intended to explain this behavior. One was an ancient Greek concept, called Akrasia . Another was the theory of Type “T” personality, relating to the craving for thrills. A third, related cause, was lust: sexual desire for some involves a need to dominate and to humiliate others. Literature is full of examples of characters who risked marriages, careers, and their very lives just to insert a bit of drama into their routine existences.

Tuchman’s book gives examples of governments that pursued policies that were clearly contrary to their nation’s best interests, often with disastrous effects. Whether by starting a war or other committing “wooden-headed” actions, there are so many examples in history (as well as the quasi-history of the Bible’s descriptions of the follies of some Hebrew kings; and the Greek "historical / mythical tale of the Trojan Horse) that Ms. Tuchman concludes that instances of wise decision-making are harder to find. (She does cite the example of Anwar Sadat / Menachem Begin in 1979; even though Sadat paid for it by his assassination, it ensured peace between Egypt and Israel after 30 years of belligerence.)

Tuchman poses the hypothesis this way:

“A PHENOMENON noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any other human activity.

 “In this sphere, wisdom, which may be defined as the exercise of judgment acting on experience, common sense and available information, is less operative and more frustrated than it should be.

 “Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function?”

[Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim, “The March of Folly” (Kindle Locations 157-161)]

“Folly or perversity”, she finds, is one kind of misgovernment, often combined with three other kinds: “tyranny or oppression;” “excessive ambition;” and “incompetence or decadence.”

She defines self-interest as “whatever conduces to the welfare or advantage of the body being governed; folly is a policy that in these terms is counter-productive.”

This definition is the same in my thesis: the welfare or advantage to the client defines his/her self-interest, and whatever action the client commits or decision he/she makes contrary to that is folly.

As a scholar, Tuchman disciplines herself when she requires that to qualify as folly, the policy must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely by hindsight. For her, this means judging it by the values of its own time and place. So, she seeks evidence that contemporaries saw the problem.

Second, she demands evidence that a “feasible alternative course of action must have been available.” This also finds a parallel in my sphere. For example, my client insisted on testifying even though I advised against it. His best chance of acquittal was to rely on the weaknesses of eyewitness identification. But by claiming self-defense, he had to admit his presence at the scene, thereby removing all doubt about the ID’s and placing his dubious credibility on the line, thus assuring his conviction.

Just as I noticed that degree of intelligence, social class, culture, or ethnicity has no bearing on whether someone will act against his self-interest, Tuchman concludes that the same holds true for governmental folly. Democracies may act just as foolishly as communist regimes or fascist regimes or monarchies; all classes are susceptible to these missteps.

She acknowledges that “folly or perversity is inherent in individuals” but she does not shrug her shoulders to accept it in government because, she argues, the consequences of governmental folly are so dire for humankind . . . and the planet that we should not accept it as the norm.

The practice of “self-deception” is common in governments. “It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs.”

Military planners have been guilty of this many times, at the cost of millions of lives. The First World War is a prime example. Most of Hitler’s blunders in The Second are due to his wooden-headed refusal to adapt to the evidence of changing conditions.  

Of course, the parallels to criminal cases are clear: I can’t count the numbers of clients who went down in flames because they refused to accept a plea offer of a lesser crime after being confronted with overwhelming proof of their guilt of the greater one. “It is,” Tuchman writes, “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts.” Tuchman adds: “The refusal to benefit from experience” is also a hallmark of this kind of wooden-headedness.

I agree with that. My client who shoplifted at the same May Company department store in which he had been arrested six months before and was caught by the same security personnel who remembered him is but one example in my memory.

Tuchman also has some examples that do not find easy parallels in my business, but are interesting nonetheless.

She mentions the case of Montezuma who led the Aztecs to their destruction by adhering to his delusion that Cortez and his soldiers were omnipotent aliens sent by the gods to fulfill a prophesy even after there was ample proof that they were mortals who could be easily outnumbered and defeated by his armies.

“One cannot quarrel with religious beliefs, especially of a strange, remote, half-understood culture. But when the beliefs become a delusion maintained against natural evidence to the point of losing the independence of a people, they may fairly be called folly. The category is once again wooden-headedness, in the special variety of religious mania. It has never wrought a greater damage.”
 [Tuchman, “The March of Folly” (Kindle Locations 347-350). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

Although she doesn’t cite it, I wonder if Prohibition could be seen as another example of “religious mania” defining policy in the face of logic, common sense, and understanding of human behavior. The impulse to enforce morality by legislation is certainly folly. 

In one respect I found a chance to quibble with the historian.

She rightly expresses her admiration for the class of men who we call our “founding fathers.” 

“[T]hey were fearless, high-principled, deeply versed in ancient and modern political thought, astute and pragmatic, unafraid of experiment, and — this is significant — ‘convinced of man’s power to improve his condition through the use of intelligence.’” [Tuchman, (Kindle Locations 429-430)].

She accounts for this amazing “burst of talent from a base of only two and a half million” by citing their exposure to values of The Age of Reason. During their time, there was:

“a wide diffusion of education, challenging economic opportunities, social mobility, training in self-government — all these encouraged citizens to cultivate their political aptitudes to the utmost. With the Church declining in prestige, and business, science and art not yet offering competing fields of endeavor, statecraft remained almost the only outlet for men of energy and purpose. Perhaps above all the need of the moment was what evoked the response, the opportunity to create a new political system. What could be more exciting, more likely to summon into action men of energy and purpose?” [Tuchman, (Kindle Locations 433-437).

Two things occurred to me. First, I recalled that the man who is thought to be one of the greatest of the founding fathers, the epitome of all the values Tuchman ascribes to them, is Alexander Hamilton. Despite his rationality when it came to the needs of government, he made foolish decisions in his personal life that were disastrous to his career ... and to his very life.

Second, most of the founding fathers were lawyers or at least had training in the English Common Law, as well as experience in legislating as members of town councils or colonial legislatures. They came from a tradition of respect for the law, and when it came to stating their case for independence, they framed their argument in rational terms, eschewing the hate-speech of violent revolution. 

Once independence was gained, they approached the task of governing with the same lawyerly care, devising a Constitution and Bill of Rights that has lasted ... until now. 

In concluding her first chapter of her book which was published in 1984, Barbara Tuchman warned us about the danger of incompetent governance.

“For two centuries, the American arrangement has always managed to right itself under pressure without discarding the system and trying another after every crisis ... Under accelerating incompetence in America, this may change. Social systems can survive a good deal of folly when circumstances are historically favorable, or when bungling is cushioned by large resources or absorbed by sheer size as in the United States during its period of expansion. Today, when there are no more cushions, folly is less affordable....” [Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim (2011-07-20). The March of Folly (Kindle Locations 442-444). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

Sadly, enough Americans in 2016 voted against their own best interests to empower a foreign country to manipulate our political system so as to cripple the democracy, perhaps irrevocably.    

AKRASIA

From the very beginning of this blog, in fact the generating idea behind its creation, I wanted to explore the phenomenon that I noticed all during my career as a criminal defense lawyer . . . the propensity for my clients to act contrary to their own self interest. 

At the start, I explained that I was talking about the many irritating actions my clients and those of my colleagues (as related in innumerable war stories, accompanied by shrugs, curses and laughter) committed to ruin their lives.  I asked: Why . . .

. . . do they drop the dope on the street right in front of the oncoming Black and White? 
. . . do they drop the rest in the back seat after they are arrested?
. . . do they waive their Miranda rights and cop to the cops, brag to the jailhouse snitches, admit to their homies, and then indignantly deny all to us?
. . . do they keep the murder weapon so it can be found in a search, or sell it to someone who they warn: “There’s a murder on it”?
. . . do they wear a ski mask, gloves, Raiders jacket, but leave their wallets at the scene of the crime?
. . . keep credit cards and wallets of the victims in the trunk of the stolen car in which they have just had an accident?
. . . do they turn down the terrific plea bargain we’ve labored so hard to wangle? 
. . . do they insist on the “story” or defense which is guaranteed to lose, even when a better version or defense is readily available, fits with the same facts, and would provide a greater chance or even a certainty of victory?
. . . do they insist on testifying when it is the worst strategy? 
. . . do they testify that they have “never even seen drugs” after we successfully suppressed impeachment on 6 prior possession convictions?

I pointed out that civil lawyers have similar complaints about their clients who ruin their good cases, turning down the best settlement and end up getting screwed in court.

I observed that the phenomenon was not attributed to stupidity, noting that many supposedly intelligent, rational people were guilty: Bill Clinton and Dick Nixon being famous examples. 

In later posts, the news provided many other examples.  Tiger Woods, Governor Mark Sanford, and many other men who have been caught in sexual scandals that have followed the Clinton model of self-immolation.  

Sexual appetite doesn’t account for every instance.  I related Alan Greenspan’s reaction to the financial shenanigans revealed in 2008. He claimed to be shocked that financiers, bankers, and other conservative participants in the “free market” had acted so recklessly, against their rational best interests, and that the free market controls failed to prevent the disaster.

The recent presidential campaign provided many examples of behavior that insured bad results for the candidate.  How many “what was he (she) thinking?” moments were there in the primary and general elections.  Although the election proved the disastrous consequences of such stances, Republicans blinked and continued to act the same way as in Congress, insuring, in the opinion of many, that they would continue their party’s slide into ridicule and minority status.

In my posts I have tried to explain the conduct.  In the Sanford post, above, I referred to a news article in which psychologists called him an example of the “Type T” personality, the thrill -seeking, risk-taking person who is common in politics (and crime).  The intoxicating mix of adrenaline, testosterone and dopamine is irresistible to many of these (usually) men.  

Parenthetically, most of the news items, and opinions of these shrinks is that the phenomenon is most common in males — similar to serial killers, who are almost all male.  However, women are certainly not immune from risky self-destructive, impulsive behavior: look up Mary Kay Letourneu, and think of Diane Lane’s Oscar winning performance in “Unfaithful.” 

Now, I find that there is a name for it: AKRASIA, defined as the status of acting against one’s own self-interest.  It is a Greek word, of course, apparently first noted by Plato, in a dialogue in which his mentor Socrates tried to account for it. Later, Aristotle tried his hand, too.  

The name the Greeks gave it makes it sound like a disease.  You can understand why — they were all about REASON being the answer to all problems.  Like Spock, they deemed “illogic” to be bad.  They attributed akrasia to the appetites — giving in to desire, passion, that is, the impulses of the body overcoming the rational judgments of the mind.     

A related idea, called “hyperbolic discounting,” which sounds like something John Nash's twisted mind might have devised, describes the human tendency to take the first path even though reason suggests waiting for a future opportunity. Economic mathematicians have devised models and equations to predict what percent of people will jump now, and how many will wait.  

Moralists have also coped with the problem, ascribing it to a failure of will power.  This view sees it as a weakness, exemplified by addictive behavior — alcohol, smoking, drugs, sex, gambling — actions people continue despite knowing the self-destructive consequences.  

This view seems to ignore human nature, relying far too much on assumptions about reason and morality.  In my earliest post on the subject, I noted that my experience was that the tendency to act contrary to one’s own best interests is NORMAL, not perverse.  It is our expectations that are skewed.  We have been educated (by the Greeks and their students, who became our teachers) to accept that the rational, moral way is normative.  We punish deviation and are shocked by its appearance.  

The reality seems to be that we are hard-wired to take illogical, risky chances, even after we “know right from wrong”, and even after we have calculated the consequences of doing so.  

Just as the addict is trapped by chemicals in his brain, so too are the “Type T’s”.  I would argue that we all have “Type T” and addictive tendencies.  In my first post of this blog, I asked the reader to remember their first temptations to transgress:

“ . . . Think about it. Remember when you first looked down to your speedometer and saw “80.” You took your foot from the accelerator, your heart raced, you looked quickly in your mirrors. Seeing no CHP cruiser, what did you do? Breathe a sigh, get back to 65 or 55? Or smile slyly and speed up again? . . . you did wrong and got away with it. . . . 

“Remember when you were in school and you were warned that if you violated the rules you would be punished? But you did it anyway -- at least once: you didn’t do your homework one day and nothing happened. You told a joke at the back of the class, chewed gum, passed a note, listened to the radio, smoked ( a cigarette or a joint) in the bathroom, ditched a class, cheated on a test, brought a gun to school (well, probably none of you did that). Sometimes you were punished for things that others instigated or joined in.

“Remember the thrill of the feeling of dizziness at the fear of being caught?

“It actually began earlier. Your sibling got you into trouble or vice versa. Admit it, you got away with it more often than your parent knew. What did you think the next time you heard a parent say: “You better not stay up after 11, or else!”

“All these experiences affected your view of justice and success. 

But most of us didn’t like that terror we felt when our hearts raced, or we felt the dizziness of being sent to the principal’s office. We usually avoided the feeling when we sensed its onset. This is what the psychiatrist we have appointed for our clients call “Impulse control.” It is what our clients lack. They feel the thrill and want it again.

I think it is significant that criminal misbehavior is most extreme during adolescence. 

It is “normal” for teenagers to rebel against adult authority, test the limits, take unreasonable risks, act impulsively, feel alternately depressed and elated for no reason apparent to adults. They act impulsively, often self-destructively, do things that are “stupid” and not in their self-interest while acting inconsiderately and selfishly. They avoid responsibility and deny obvious facts. And they are adamantly assertive of their perception that life and all rules are “unfair.”  Adolescence would not be worthy of the name without these “experiments.” 

Yet, it continues into “normal” adulthood.  Some still drink and drive, others have unsafe sex, almost everyone buy impulsively --- consider EBay, or the Home Shopping Network.  It is not unusual but common for humans to act irrationally, against their better judgments.  

It is only a matter of degree to go from the “norm” to the excessive: the athlete who endangers career and the millions that he dreamed of and worked for all his life --- in order to get high with the homies; the woman who risks love, family, security --- for a fling with a delivery boy or student; the brilliant policy wonk who loses the presidency over an impulse to use the Oval Office as a bedroom.  

Stupid Criminal Tricks

The reports about the Times Square bomber's incompetence reminded me of my many clients who have done similarly dumb things in their frantic attempts to foul up their lives ... and my chances of winning their cases.

Example: A client entered a McDonald's, ordered a Big Mac, removed a twenty from his wallet. When the register was opened, he pulled a gun, took a handful of cash and fled ... leaving his wallet on the counter. Later, while police were writing the info from the ID in the wallet, he returned, wishing to claim his lost wallet and was arrested.

Some conservatives have withheld acclaim for the capture of Shahzad because of his ineptitude which ably abetted his pursuers. What the critics igore is that his flaws are not rare. They are common among wrongdoers, whether from nerves, fear, or a self-destructive impulse (see introduction to Borenstein's Law for a more thorough explanation of the phenomenon).

It is this same trait that impels captured criminals to talk freely and willingly to authorities even after warned that "... anything you say may be used against you ..."

Example: In a recent case, a D.A. provides a CD to me with a twinkle in her eye. "You're gonna love this," she chuckles. I listened and chuckled (ironically).

It was a recording of a phone call made from the jail to my client's friend (who later became a co-defendant). My client's voice is clearly heard making a number of incriminating statements in a confidential tone, some whispered, some in street slang, but all clearly inculpating.

Periodically, he is heard to pause while a recorded voice interrupts his conversation with the following: "Warning: calls from the jail may be monitored for security reasons ...." After hearinjg each loud warning, my client simply continues his admission.

Remorse is a funny thing ...

"The only thing you owe the public is a good performance." H. Bogart.

"I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish." T. Woods.

T. Woods has a string of outstanding performances in his chosen field, which is golf. Let's get that straight. Golf. Not religion, politics, ethics, oratory. It is golf talent that has made him celebrated, envied, and vulnerable to attack for hubris.

He is also living proof of a central principle of Borenstein's Law - the counter intuitive truth that human beings can be counted on to act against their own best interests - sometimes to the point of self-destruction.

This Law applies to anyone, from the most sociopathic criminal to the highest achieving powerful people on earth.

Here's how Tiger phrased it:

"I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn’t apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn’t have to go far to find them."

Now, Mr. Woods has exemplified another lesson I have learned in almost forty years of defending people accused of wrongdoing:

No expression of remorse can ever satisfy everyone.

There are ramifications of this fact.
The transgressor is usually in a no-win posture.
Failure to express remorse for bad conduct is seen as aggravating, but expressions of remorse are usually suspiciously self-serving.

"Sincerity" is completely subjective and tentative. Bill Clinton apologized with the same "sincere" voice he had used to deny guilt under oath months before.

Cynical responses such as "he wouldn't be sorry if he hadn't been caught" are earned by the initial deception.

The reaction to "I'm sorry" has as much to do with the listener's attitude as the transgressor's. People whose faith in another's goodness is shattered by revelations of transgression are usually hurt and angry.

The media does not have the "right" to know all the facts about everybody's life, even so-called "public figures." The First Amendment does not demand that people who want to sell products must give power over their lives to commercial media, whose primary purpose is to profit from celebrities rather than to provide information people need to form a better world.

THE 'SAY IT AIN'T SO' MOMENT

Those who cannot understand why Tiger Woods, a man with so much to lose, would risk it all by committing risky sexual behavior are ignorant of Borenstein’s Law.

But after all, the head scratchers say, Woods is one athlete whose reputation for good character was squeaky clean. His trademark as a golfer is his intelligent approach to the sport. He is the most physically fit and the smartest golfer on the course, whose preparation and discipline are unparalleled.

So what? Bill Clinton was the smartest guy in any room. He was the freakin’ president of the U.S., dude.

Borenstein’s Law holds that decisions and conduct which are against an individual’s best interests and therefore by common sense would seem to be unlikely, are actually within the normal range of human behavior, no matter the stature of the individual in society. This kind of apparently irrational risky behavior accounts for most of the annoying things teens do, most crimes of impulse, and most philandering in the upper crust.

More interesting is that the Woods case seems to illustrate a corollary to Borenstein’s Law: Goodness (i.e., high moral character) and Greatness (i.e., exceptional achievement) are often mutually exclusive, that is to say people of great accomplishments in their chosen field usually would not qualify for sainthood if the standard is morality in their private lives.

The examples proving this point are too numerous to mention, but I will mention one prominent example. Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest thinker of the 20th Century and one of the greatest of all time, was a self acknowledged failure as husband and father.

He was a selfish man, discarded his first wife (herself a trained physicist whose ideas may have contributed to his early work) and their three children without a second thought after years of surreptitious affairs, including one with his cousin, who became his second wife. He then proceeded to be unfaithful to her as often as the opportunities arose. He admitted his personal failings, attributing them to his nature, and his need for concentration on his work.

One other point worth mentioning. When the subject arises, the conclusion is often criticized as chauvinistic, seen as a weak argument justifying male prerogatives relating to monogamy. I don’t believe the propensity for risky behavior is limited to one sex.

I.e.: Catherine THE GREAT. Q.E.D.

Borenstein's Law Strikes Again

When I began to blog at the urging of my son, one of my first posts (Intro to Borenstein’s Law, originally posted 6/20/2005) was an attempt to answer a question that haunts all criminal defense lawyers: why our clients act so irrationally in a way that seems so stupid, so contrary to their best interests.

I gave many examples, like leaving a wallet at the scene of the crime ... and then reporting it stolen. I now have a case that ranks close to the top. My client, after being questioned by police and jailed, called his girlfriend. During the call he made incriminating statements, despite a loudly intrusive recording that blared every 60 seconds that warned speakers that such calls are monitored and taped.

In my post, I noted that people - not just our clients - act contrary to their best interests so often that it can be called the norm, not an aberration. In fact, supposedly smart people - like Bill Clinton and Dick Nixon - commit reckless acts that satisfy immediate urges without considering the consequences. The drive for sex, money, power and other elemental desires often overwhelms caution, reason, or religious teachings - uh, abusing priests, q.e.d.

Today’s L.A. Times contains an article that confirms my thesis. Discussing South Carolina Mark Sanford’s revelations, the article notes:

"Experts have all kinds of theories about why otherwise intelligent men -- and it's almost always men -- behave so recklessly. Sex and power are inextricably intertwined, as Henry Kissinger famously noted, and some politicians have a hard time reining in the urge for either. ‘If you're one of these Master of the Universe kind of guys, you get to a place where you feel that the rules don't apply to you,’ said Pepper Schwartz, a University of
Washington sociologist who specializes in relationships.

"Frank Farley, a Temple University psychologist, even coined a term -- the ‘Type T personality’ -- to describe politicians' predilection for philandering. The "T" stands for thrill-seeker, which describes the kind of person drawn to a career that, by its nature, requires a willingness to step out of ordinary life and take risks."‘It's not a 9-to-5 job,’ said Farley, a former president of the merican Psychological Assn. who has extensively studied politicians' behavior. ‘It has very high levels of uncertainty, variety, novelty, challenge, unpredictability -- and therefore it attracts a certain kind of person.’ The positive side of that risk-taking is a willingness to expose oneself to that most public of examinations: an election campaign. The downside, Farley said, is relenting to personal urges, like drugs, alcohol or an extramarital dalliance.
　
"‘It's almost built into their personalities,’ he said of many officeholders. ‘Put it together with the opportunities they have, and we should not be shocked when we see it happening.’ "Why the risk? ‘It's hard to understand this if you have not been in passionate love, and it's particularly intense when it's star-crossed,’ Schwartz said. ‘You are pumping adrenaline, testosterone and dopamine -- it's a drug cocktail; you are
intoxicated. And you know what kind of decision we make when we are intoxicated.’"

Greenspan's Folly and Borenstein's Law

On October 23, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan testified before Congress, trying to explain how he blew it, failed to anticipate the current economic tragedy, and in fact, had fashioned policies and theories that led to it.

According to the AP, Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a "mistake" in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works."

DUH!

Greenspan's error was that he failed to read Intro to Borenstein's Law.

In June, 2005, I was trying to explain why our criminal clients act in ways that are often ascribed to stupidity. I pointed out that intelligence and education was an unreliable barrier to risky behavior.

As I explained, people (not just our clients) act contrary to their best interests so often that it can be called the norm, not an aberration.

In fact, supposedly smart people (like Bill Clinton and Dick Nixon) commit reckless acts that satisfy immediate urges without considering the consequences.

The drive for sex, money, power and other elemental desires often overwhelms caution, reason, or religious teachings (uh, abusing priests ... q.e.d.).

Greenspan's presumption that bankers would be restrained by their sense of financial responsibility because it was in their own self-interest to do so is naive, reflecting a misunderstanding of history and law.

Supposed conservatives recognize the wisdom of restraints on government and individuals imposed by the Constitution and criminal laws. Yet, they also urge limiting restraints on the so-called Free Market, assuming that the inherent structure of the marketplace will suffice.

Smart people like Alan Greenspan thus draw risky conclusions about human behavior --- not too different from the kinds of decisions our dumb criminal clients make, like assuming that their homies won't snitch them off when cornered by the cops.