If Judge William Shaffer’s decision last week made you flinch, that’s OK. It was instinctual, an involuntary reflex sparked by your sense of fair play.

The judge denied a Butler man’s motion to disclose the identities of two confidential drug informants linking him to a suspected crystal meth lab in Butler.

Shaffer’s ruling is valid and sound, even though it’s likely to be the focal point of criminal proceedings in the case.

James C. Kidd already is a convicted felon. Kidd, 21, was arrested in 2015 for operating a crystal methamphetamine lab inside a mobile home in Summit Township where he was living with two other adults and four children. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 11½ to 23 months in the Butler County Prison with 18 months probation. He was released May 20, 2016, credited for 310 days already served.

A few months later, police began surveillance of a home on Elm Court in Butler, suspicious that a brother and sister living there, Ross and Melissa Cammisa, had bought large quantities of the antihistamine pseudoephedrine, which is used to make meth. Since 2006 the federal government has limited and monitored over-the-counter purchases of the drug.

Sometime during the early phases of the investigation, two confidential informants told police that Ross Cammisa had been making meth with Kidd.

In early December, police were called to the home for a domestic dispute when they noticed evidence of drug-making activity sitting in plain sight, according to court documents.

On Dec. 12, agents with the state police Clandestine Lab Response Team and the state attorney general’s office raided the Elm Court home and turned up evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Arrest warrants were issued for the Cammisas and Kidd in January.

Kidd’s attorney, Public Defender Joseph Smith, argued the charges against Kidd depend on the testimony of the confidential sources. While Kidd was not present at the time of the raid, and was not a resident at the home, the informants told police that he was also involved.

Smith argued that the identities of the informants should be made available to establish a defense of misidentification, because they are the only witnesses who would be available to testify. The co-defendants might choose not to testify and implicate themselves.

It might seem like a fundamental right of the defendant — except for one thing. The prosecution appears confident it can prove its case without the testimony of the confidential witnesses.

In the process, prosecuting attorneys must be able to show that they would have established Kidd’s presence or involvement even without the confidential tips.

The proof might include evidence showing the meth recipe at Elm Court matched the recipe, method and ingredients involved in Kidd’s prior conviction. It might be a comparison of the brands and sources of the chemicals. It might be a record of cell phone calls and text messages sent from the Cammisas to Kidd. It might even be a chemical analysis of the finished methamphetamine.

Suffice it to say, the defense did not sway Judge Shaffer to the conclusion that knowledge of Kidd’s involvement hangs solely on the testimony of two unnamed witnesses.

By the same token, the prosecution must realize it needs more — a lot more — than confidential informants to get a conviction.

We’re 100-percent committed to District Attorney Richard Goldinger’s “Not in My Back Yard” campaign to crack down on drug trafficking in Butler County. We’ve seen more than enough death and devastation from addiction in recent years. We’re tired of it. We thirst for justice.

But at the same time, we cannot suspend constitutional rights in pursuit of security — and to be clear, that’s not what Judge Shaffer’s decision reflects. Not by a long shot.