COUNTERFEIT: Don't punish the informant

Two groups of 50 people each settled their differences by putting black or white marbles in a pouch. After counting, the majority was the winner.

Eventually suspicions arose and re-examination of the marbles revealed also yellow and blue marbles and even an additional 10, to make a total of 110 rather than the expected 100.

But instead of investigating how these deviations have happened and how they can be prevented in the future, a job certainly justified, necessary and welcomed by most, the objecting party was forced to change into a super detective agency, finding out and proving how the yellow and blue and extra 10 marbles got into the system.

Since when has a proven deviation had to be proved again? Since when do law enforcing agencies have to prove who and how counterfeit was entered into the system to make it "real" counterfeit?

Why is there a shift from the discovered irregularities to persecution of the informant by demanding proof of essentially unprovable details? This then is the path to integrity restoration?

GUNTER MILOW

Coeur d'Alene