When Criminals Help Catch Criminals: Understanding the Informant System

June 24, 2026 | Freeport, IL

Over the past couple months, conversations throughout Freeport have increasingly focused on a topic that rarely receives public attention: confidential informants.

At coffee shops, on social media, in court hallways, and around kitchen tables, residents have been discussing allegations, rumors, and speculation regarding whether certain individuals involved in criminal activity may have received favorable treatment in exchange for providing information to law enforcement agencies.

Some point to convictions that resulted in lengthy prison sentences. Others point to reduced charges, plea agreements, dismissed cases, or sentences they believe were unexpectedly lenient. Whether those perceptions are accurate or not, they have sparked a broader conversation about how the criminal justice system works and the role confidential informants play within it.

The timing of those discussions is not surprising.

For years, Freeport and Stephenson County have struggled with many of the same challenges facing communities across America. Drugs. Illegal firearms. Violence. Property crime. Sex offenses. Repeat offenders.

Residents have watched businesses close, families move away, and taxpayers spend thousands of dollars on security cameras, alarm systems, motion lights, and other measures designed to protect themselves and their property.

As these challenges continue, many residents find themselves asking increasingly difficult questions.

Why do some offenders appear to receive severe consequences while others seem to receive opportunities?

How are cooperation agreements reached?

Who decides whether a defendant receives consideration for assisting investigators?

And perhaps most importantly, are these arrangements making communities safer?

Or have we become so focused on obtaining convictions that we have begun sacrificing accountability in the process?

To answer those questions, it is important to first understand what an informant actually is and why law enforcement agencies use them.

Informants Are Nothing New

Despite recent public interest, confidential informants are not a modern invention.

In one form or another, informants have existed for centuries.

Throughout American history, law enforcement agencies have relied on individuals willing to provide information about criminal activity. During Prohibition, informants helped authorities investigate bootlegging operations. During the fight against organized crime, informants played a critical role in exposing Mafia families and criminal enterprises that had operated largely untouched for decades.

In the 1980s and 1990s, as America intensified its War on Drugs, the use of confidential informants expanded dramatically. Drug trafficking organizations often operated behind layers of secrecy, making it nearly impossible for investigators to penetrate them without assistance from individuals already involved in criminal activity.

That remains true today.

Whether investigating narcotics trafficking, gang activity, weapons offenses, or violent crime, confidential informants continue to serve as one of law enforcement's most commonly used investigative tools.

Why Law Enforcement Relies on Informants

Supporters of the informant system often point to a simple reality:

Criminals rarely commit crimes in front of police officers.

Drug traffickers do not advertise their suppliers. Gang members do not volunteer information about their associates. Violent offenders rarely invite investigators into their inner circles.

As a result, law enforcement frequently relies on individuals who already possess access to information that would otherwise remain hidden.

The drug dealer knows his supplier.

The supplier knows who is bringing drugs into town.

The gang member knows who is carrying firearms.

The burglar knows who is buying stolen property.

The individuals closest to criminal activity often possess the most valuable information about it.

Supporters argue that many significant criminal investigations would never occur without confidential informants. They point to major narcotics seizures, gang prosecutions, recovered firearms, and solved murders as evidence that informants serve an important public purpose.

To them, informants are not simply helpful.

They are necessary.

The Deal

The public often imagines informants being handed envelopes full of cash in exchange for information.

While financial payments do occur in some circumstances, money is often not the primary incentive.

The most valuable currency within the criminal justice system is frequently leniency.

Reduced charges.

Dismissed charges.

Deferred prosecution agreements.

Favorable plea deals.

Reduced sentencing recommendations.

In some cases, cooperation can significantly alter the outcome of a criminal case.

From the perspective of investigators and prosecutors, those arrangements may be entirely reasonable. If information provided by one offender helps dismantle a larger criminal organization, remove dangerous offenders from the streets, or prevent future crimes, many would argue society benefits from that exchange.

Yet this is also where public concern begins.

When Informants Get It Wrong

While informants have helped solve countless crimes, history has also shown the dangers associated with relying too heavily on individuals motivated by self-interest.

An informant facing criminal charges has an obvious incentive to provide information that investigators find useful.

Sometimes that information is accurate. Sometimes it is not.

Throughout the United States, there have been documented cases involving informants who lied, exaggerated, shifted blame, settled personal scores, or attempted to minimize their own involvement in criminal activity.

This reality does not mean informants are inherently unreliable.

Nor does it mean investigators are unaware of these risks.

Experienced investigators routinely attempt to corroborate information through surveillance, recordings, search warrants, witness statements, and physical evidence.

Still, the possibility remains.

When someone stands to benefit from providing information, questions about motivation naturally follow.

The Pepsi and Coca-Cola Problem

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the criticism of the informant system is through a simple hypothetical example.

Imagine two competing companies: Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

Both operate in the same industry. Both sell similar products. Both compete for customers, suppliers, distributors, and territory.

Now imagine both companies are violating regulations. Perhaps both are cutting corners. Perhaps both have labor violations. Perhaps both are engaging in conduct that could attract regulatory scrutiny.

One day Pepsi approaches authorities.

Executives provide documents. They identify violations occurring within Coca-Cola's operations. They point regulators toward facilities, managers, suppliers, and employees.

Authorities act on the information. Investigations begin. Penalties are imposed. Operations are disrupted.

Meanwhile, Pepsi continues operating.

As Coca-Cola struggles through legal troubles, Pepsi expands. New customers become available. New suppliers become available. Market share increases. Profits grow.

Now ask a simple question:

Was Pepsi motivated by a desire for justice? Or was Pepsi motivated by self-interest?

The answer could easily be both.

Critics of the informant system argue that similar incentives can exist within criminal organizations. Individuals operating in the same criminal environment often possess detailed information about competitors, rivals, associates, and enemies.

When cooperation offers the possibility of reduced charges or lighter sentences, some worry that offenders may be motivated not only by a desire to assist law enforcement but also by a desire to eliminate competition while protecting themselves.

To be clear, that does not mean the information provided is false. Nor does it mean investigators are acting improperly. It simply highlights the complex incentives that can exist whenever cooperation and self-interest intersect.

The Accountability Question

This is where the debate becomes most difficult.

Most people understand why law enforcement needs information. Most people understand why cooperation may deserve consideration. What many struggle with is determining where the line should be drawn.

Imagine two offenders involved in similar criminal conduct.

One remains silent. One cooperates.

If one receives years in prison while the other receives dramatically reduced consequences, many citizens begin asking difficult questions.

Was justice served? Was accountability applied equally? Did one offender receive an opportunity because of information provided? Or did one simply learn how to navigate the system more effectively than the other?

These are not anti-law enforcement questions.

They are public accountability questions. And they deserve thoughtful discussion.

The Other Side of the Argument

Law enforcement officials would likely respond that the public rarely sees the entire picture.

An informant may help prevent a homicide. They may identify a violent offender. They may help recover firearms. They may assist investigators in dismantling a trafficking organization responsible for distributing dangerous narcotics throughout an entire region.

The public sees the reduced charge.

Investigators may see the crimes that never occurred because of the information provided.

Both perspectives can be true at the same time. That is what makes the issue so complicated.

The debate is not really about whether informants should exist. Informants have been part of law enforcement for generations and will almost certainly continue to be used in the future.

The real debate is about balance.

How much leniency is appropriate? How much accountability should remain? How much benefit must society receive before reduced consequences become justified?

Those questions rarely have simple answers.

F4F Chairman's Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson

The public does not lose confidence in the justice system because criminals cooperate with law enforcement.

Most people understand why investigators need information. Most people understand that difficult decisions must sometimes be made to solve difficult crimes.

The public loses confidence when cooperation appears to become more valuable than accountability.

Every community has heard the stories.

The individual who always seems to receive another opportunity. The offender who somehow avoids consequences that others face. The person many believe has learned how to navigate the system.

Sometimes those stories are true. Sometimes they are completely false.

The problem is that the public is rarely in a position to know the difference. That uncertainty creates fertile ground for suspicion, frustration, and mistrust.

Law enforcement often sees the crimes prevented because of an informant's cooperation. The public often sees only the charges reduced because of it. Both perspectives matter. Both deserve consideration.

The challenge facing every justice system is ensuring that cooperation remains a tool used to advance justice rather than a mechanism through which justice appears unevenly applied.

Because once citizens begin believing that accountability depends more on what information you can provide than what actions you committed, trust begins to erode.

And trust, once lost, is one of the most difficult things for any institution to recover.

As Freeport continues grappling with drugs, violence, repeat offenders, and public safety concerns, perhaps the most important question is not whether confidential informants should exist.

Perhaps the more important question is this:

Have we found the proper balance between cooperation and accountability, or have we become so focused on securing convictions that we risk losing sight of justice itself?