One little bit that may have gone ignored in a previous episode of Breaking Bad, S1E4, was where DEA agent Hank remarked to his team that drug dealer Crazy-8, who was missing and presumed dead at that point, had been a confidential informant. And in exchange for Crazy-8 ratting on other drug dealers, the DEA was letting Crazy-8 continue being a gang boss himself. Even worse, Hank acknowledged that every time they arrested another drug dealer whom Crazy-8 ratted out to them, Crazy-8 absorbed that other drug dealer's territory. This is a problem from a law enforcement perspective because it means the police aren't actually reducing crime, they're just rearranging who's committing the crimes. Moreover, they're choosing who's allowed to commit the crimes— and they're helping promote a chosen small-time drug dealer into a big-time gangster.
The issue came up again in S2E2 when Hank and his DEA partner were briefing the local police on drug dealer Tuco. Hank compared Tuco's criminal enterprise to Crazy-8's and mentioned it he was glad Crazy-8 had been "eliminated". The local police didn't know the DEA was purposefully ignoring— perhaps even protecting— Crazy-8's crimes.
Look, I get it that policing against crime gangs means working with bad people. Cops have to get evidence and leads from people who themselves are criminals who are cooperating. And prosecutors have to get cooperating witnesses to get eye-witness and other evidence. In both cases "cooperating" generally means overlooking or under-prosecuting crimes. This is an unfortunate reality that must be accepted. But it is also a moral hazard that must be examined. Does overlooking crime A to prosecute crime B genuinely serve the public interest?
A lot of police-procedural shows show this kind of deal-making. Most even tackle the issue of Does overlooking crime A to prosecute crime B genuinely serve the public interest? directly. For example, when the plot has a DA offering leniency to a person who committed a murder in exchange for testimony to convict their boss who ordered multiple murders, we see the DA and their colleagues weighing this arrangement on the scales of justice. It's a grisly calculus, but at least it computes: go lightly on one murder to convict on multiple others.
In the situation in Breaking Bad with Crazy-8 I would argue the answer was No. Just as many drugs were being supplied as before, all that was being changed was who's the supplier. Worse, the DEA was creating a public perception of success in the War on Drugs to justifying its budget and police powers without actually making the public any safer.
The issue came up again in S2E2 when Hank and his DEA partner were briefing the local police on drug dealer Tuco. Hank compared Tuco's criminal enterprise to Crazy-8's and mentioned it he was glad Crazy-8 had been "eliminated". The local police didn't know the DEA was purposefully ignoring— perhaps even protecting— Crazy-8's crimes.
Look, I get it that policing against crime gangs means working with bad people. Cops have to get evidence and leads from people who themselves are criminals who are cooperating. And prosecutors have to get cooperating witnesses to get eye-witness and other evidence. In both cases "cooperating" generally means overlooking or under-prosecuting crimes. This is an unfortunate reality that must be accepted. But it is also a moral hazard that must be examined. Does overlooking crime A to prosecute crime B genuinely serve the public interest?
A lot of police-procedural shows show this kind of deal-making. Most even tackle the issue of Does overlooking crime A to prosecute crime B genuinely serve the public interest? directly. For example, when the plot has a DA offering leniency to a person who committed a murder in exchange for testimony to convict their boss who ordered multiple murders, we see the DA and their colleagues weighing this arrangement on the scales of justice. It's a grisly calculus, but at least it computes: go lightly on one murder to convict on multiple others.
In the situation in Breaking Bad with Crazy-8 I would argue the answer was No. Just as many drugs were being supplied as before, all that was being changed was who's the supplier. Worse, the DEA was creating a public perception of success in the War on Drugs to justifying its budget and police powers without actually making the public any safer.