It's legal for police to use deception in interrogations. Some want that to end(text.npr.org)
text.npr.org
It's legal for police to use deception in interrogations. Some want that to end
https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-4974964
274 comments
I am from India where we have jokes about our police and how extreme the corruption is and how bad our police is compared to the ones from other nations[1]. But then I often read about USA and police corruption there, brutality, and virtual immunity (strike virtual out maybe) they enjoy and I feel that definitely trumps Indian police in this aspects by a crazy margin. At least we can technically hold them accountable here and we often do.
[1] One of them is that there was a tiger set free in a dense forest somewhere and police from Germany, Japan, and India were tasked to track it down each time as a challenge. Japan found the tiger in 4 hours, Germany in 12 hours. Indian police party was nowhere to be seen. Hours passed, days passed. Finally after the end of the 12th day the Japanese and German police banded together and went to find/rescue the Indian police party. They saw the police party had set camp deep inside the forest and they had a monkey hung upside down from a tree that they were taking turns beating and telling it to confess that it was the tiger.
[1] One of them is that there was a tiger set free in a dense forest somewhere and police from Germany, Japan, and India were tasked to track it down each time as a challenge. Japan found the tiger in 4 hours, Germany in 12 hours. Indian police party was nowhere to be seen. Hours passed, days passed. Finally after the end of the 12th day the Japanese and German police banded together and went to find/rescue the Indian police party. They saw the police party had set camp deep inside the forest and they had a monkey hung upside down from a tree that they were taking turns beating and telling it to confess that it was the tiger.
Simply in India, anything told to the police is not applicable as evidence in the court of law.
Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.
Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.
Simply in India, anything told to the police is not applicable as evidence in the court of law.
Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.
Only statements in front of Judges are applicable. So it makes no sense for police to interrogate to get answers.
To be clear, what they did to Tom Perez was ALREADY illegal. Which is why he was able to sue and win $900K.
If you want to prevent these sorts of things from happening in the future, adding another ban on this behavior isn’t going to do it. There needs to be consequences for the officers that do this. It’s not the officers paying $900K, it’s the city. And they aren’t getting fired, the officers that did that to Tom Perez even got promoted! The system of accountability needs to be reformed. Maybe that means reforming qualified immunity, maybe demoting and firing officers for misconduct, maybe prosecutors need to start indicting officers when their behavior gets to the point of criminality.
Personally, I think if you could sue, say, the police union rather than the city when there is misconduct, things would turn around fast.
If you want to prevent these sorts of things from happening in the future, adding another ban on this behavior isn’t going to do it. There needs to be consequences for the officers that do this. It’s not the officers paying $900K, it’s the city. And they aren’t getting fired, the officers that did that to Tom Perez even got promoted! The system of accountability needs to be reformed. Maybe that means reforming qualified immunity, maybe demoting and firing officers for misconduct, maybe prosecutors need to start indicting officers when their behavior gets to the point of criminality.
Personally, I think if you could sue, say, the police union rather than the city when there is misconduct, things would turn around fast.
That’s shocking, and sounds like psychological torture. That police officer should be criminally prosecuted (though it’s difficult to get a prosecutor to go after the police).
> They the said that they would kill his dog
This crosses from lie to threat. Totally unacceptable.
This crosses from lie to threat. Totally unacceptable.
Why is lying acceptable?
Lying is wrong, but murder is wronger.
great, if you can figure out how to lie to only murderers we wouldn’t even need police to investigate
The police do both. So are they wrongest?
And killing a dog is wrongest.
Because it’s legitimate in some cases. Obvious example is when you have an accomplice to a kidnapping in custody and time is limited.
Less convincingly, when you separate a group of suspects and claim that Kyle gave you up when he did nothing of the sort.
Less convincingly, when you separate a group of suspects and claim that Kyle gave you up when he did nothing of the sort.
No it isn't. People have imperfect memory, and if the police can knowingly lie to you, then they can also convince you to admit something which never happened, effectively coercing you to fabricate evidence against yourself.
Yes, it may lead to some bad guys getting caught who otherwise wouldn't have been. But that is not an excuse if it also compromises the rule of law for innocent people.
Yes, it may lead to some bad guys getting caught who otherwise wouldn't have been. But that is not an excuse if it also compromises the rule of law for innocent people.
Yes, great, so if neither of you were actually involved in the crime and they tell you that the other guy gave you up, you can fabricate something that implicates him instead so they take the rap because you’re scared of being blamed.
This isn’t a hypothetical, people have literally gone to prison for decades before some new DNA evidence exonerates them and the ‘accomplice’ admits they lied…
This isn’t a hypothetical, people have literally gone to prison for decades before some new DNA evidence exonerates them and the ‘accomplice’ admits they lied…
The vast majority of folks who get cleared based on “new DNA evidence” or whatever actually don’t have their innocence proven. Instead in most of these cases, there is shown to be some problem with a piece of evidence relied on at trial.
To be clear, the prosecutors should be held to a high standard, and they should be forced to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we should also be a little more cautious about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic. In case that evidence had been excluded on time, it is possible that the prosecutors could still have built a solid case that relied on different evidence.
To be clear, the prosecutors should be held to a high standard, and they should be forced to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we should also be a little more cautious about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic. In case that evidence had been excluded on time, it is possible that the prosecutors could still have built a solid case that relied on different evidence.
> about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic
That's literally how innocence works though. From the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial ...". If they weren't proven guilty they are presumed innocent.
That's literally how innocence works though. From the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial ...". If they weren't proven guilty they are presumed innocent.
Yes but it’s a presumption rather than something that is proven.
If the guy who done it was blonde, 6’2”, driving a red Mercedes, and he wrapped the body in a green rug, and it turns out that the bloodstains on green rug of the 6’2” blonde guy with the red Mercedes that you arrested for it are only actually 70% likely to be the victim’s rather than 99.5%, while LEGALLY the guy in prison now can benefit from the presumption of innocence, I’m not sure I’d be comfortable if he moved in downstairs.
Proven innocence would be “oh we have irrefutable video evidence that this guy was two states away at the time”.
If the guy who done it was blonde, 6’2”, driving a red Mercedes, and he wrapped the body in a green rug, and it turns out that the bloodstains on green rug of the 6’2” blonde guy with the red Mercedes that you arrested for it are only actually 70% likely to be the victim’s rather than 99.5%, while LEGALLY the guy in prison now can benefit from the presumption of innocence, I’m not sure I’d be comfortable if he moved in downstairs.
Proven innocence would be “oh we have irrefutable video evidence that this guy was two states away at the time”.
This seems like a stretch. As far as I know, usually DNA evidence in exonerations is more along the lines of, "The DNA is 98% match for a known killer who was arrested for similar crime a few years later."
Even that is problematic. A 98% match means there’s a 1 in 50 chance that the sample is not from the person that it’s been matched to. How many cases do you have to cross match with how many felons before you get a false positive? It’s probably not as many as you think, but I don’t have the numbers to do the maths with.
Suggested reading on this topic: https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-...
Suggested reading on this topic: https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-...
Interestingly enough this only works in countries where the police is allowed to imply they can get punishment lowered by talking to the prosecutor, something that's impossible in most western countries.
It unfortunately has a side effect, the reciprocating "my friend did it" defense works really well in those places - Scandinavia, I'm looking at you.
Given two murder suspects, but no witnesses, and no evidence of who actually delivered the final blow, it doesn't matter if both would be covered in the victims blood. As long as they point blame at each other and shut up, chances are they will get away with murder.
They would still very likely go to prison of course, but for some "lesser" crime like assault.
It unfortunately has a side effect, the reciprocating "my friend did it" defense works really well in those places - Scandinavia, I'm looking at you.
Given two murder suspects, but no witnesses, and no evidence of who actually delivered the final blow, it doesn't matter if both would be covered in the victims blood. As long as they point blame at each other and shut up, chances are they will get away with murder.
They would still very likely go to prison of course, but for some "lesser" crime like assault.
The police in other countries manage without doing this.
sandworm101(2)
> They the said that they would kill his dog
Someone should be in prison. This will not end untill there are personal consequences.
Someone should be in prison. This will not end untill there are personal consequences.
Cops routinely kill dogs as a matter of course, and say whatever they want to the arrested. Personal consequences for it are laughable, especially in the current political climate.
Pets are considered mere property damage by the law. I think that's pretty out of line with how most pet owners would feel about anyone hurting their pets.
well, that depends. your pet? just property.
harm or kill a police dog however? youll do 45 years in prison because thats not property, its a "K-9 cop"
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/man-who-killed-police...
double standards like this are how Rome burned.
harm or kill a police dog however? youll do 45 years in prison because thats not property, its a "K-9 cop"
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/man-who-killed-police...
double standards like this are how Rome burned.
I don't mind that being the punishment there so much as I mind that not being the punishment for someone who murders my pet.
Anything someone doesn’t like becomes a reason Rome burned.
Water pipes made of lead? Rome burned.
Invasions by barbarian tribes that I’m going to liken to modern immigration to push my anti-immigration stance? Rome burned.
Adoption of Christianity by Theodosius in 395AD? Believe it or not, Rome burned in 410AD.
“Double standards”? Rome burned.
This only works on people who’ve never opened a history book in their lives. Why would you try it here, where people are much more likely to be familiar with Roman history?
Water pipes made of lead? Rome burned.
Invasions by barbarian tribes that I’m going to liken to modern immigration to push my anti-immigration stance? Rome burned.
Adoption of Christianity by Theodosius in 395AD? Believe it or not, Rome burned in 410AD.
“Double standards”? Rome burned.
This only works on people who’ve never opened a history book in their lives. Why would you try it here, where people are much more likely to be familiar with Roman history?
I read it more or less as hyperbole, but I have seen a lot of people mad over such things as double standards in policing lately.
It's sad that for some people animals are still just property
I’m curious why you chose to draw the line there.
Are you really? Ever heard the line “dog is a man’s best friend”? Or seen that Jon Wick movie?
I reckon that once the police start trying to frame a man for the imaginary murder of his own father, threatening to actually kill his dog sounds like the most drab of offenses Especially on account of that coming into play later.
Your “trying to frame a man” is their “trying to get him to confess to something he did”. It’s intellectually lazy on their part to jump to that conclusion without any sort of due diligence, but it’s not necessarily evil per se.
Threatening to kill the dog is just plain cruel.
Threatening to kill the dog is just plain cruel.
I’ll try to keep this in mind in case you and I cross paths while I have the upper hand and I happen to be feeling an intellectually lazy sort of way.
Whatever happens shouldn’t be attributed to malice. I won’t hurt your pets. My superiors ought to award me for it. I was just being stupid.
Whatever happens shouldn’t be attributed to malice. I won’t hurt your pets. My superiors ought to award me for it. I was just being stupid.
> Your “trying to frame a man” is their “trying to get him to confess to something he did”.
This is not a valid activity. Either you have proof or you don’t.
A proper hardened criminal will never confess.
If you have a confession, it’s >70% chance for perversion of justice:
A terrorist will confess because they want fame
In Russia you pay someone to ‘confess’ for your crime and go to prison instead of you.
The naive, mentally infirm will confess, often to things they didn’t do.
Or you managed to torture a confession out of someone, like they did here.
Confessions lead straight to Spanish Inquisition type of justice
This is not a valid activity. Either you have proof or you don’t.
A proper hardened criminal will never confess.
If you have a confession, it’s >70% chance for perversion of justice:
A terrorist will confess because they want fame
In Russia you pay someone to ‘confess’ for your crime and go to prison instead of you.
The naive, mentally infirm will confess, often to things they didn’t do.
Or you managed to torture a confession out of someone, like they did here.
Confessions lead straight to Spanish Inquisition type of justice
The reason John Wick did that is because "man murders hundreds of people, but its ok for us to admire him for it because they deserved it because they killed his wife /girlfriend" is entirely overdone.
People do of course care about their pets, but John Wick used the death of a pet as its instigating event because it was different, not because it was a remotely usual way to respond to a pets death.
People do of course care about their pets, but John Wick used the death of a pet as its instigating event because it was different, not because it was a remotely usual way to respond to a pets death.
The article says the officers got promoted.
I'm not sure why this comment was killed. A heading in the ABC 11 article is literally "Officers involved were later promoted". The text of the article later goes on to say
> Months after the interrogation, Guthrie was named a 2019 Employee of the Year for the Fontana Police Department.
> Guthrie is now a sergeant. So is Janusz.
> And Michael Dorsey, the lieutenant who Guthrie says told him and Janusz that officers believed Perez Jr. had killed his father, has been promoted to captain and is now chief of police of Fontana, overseeing 188 sworn officers, according to its website.
> Months after the interrogation, Guthrie was named a 2019 Employee of the Year for the Fontana Police Department.
> Guthrie is now a sergeant. So is Janusz.
> And Michael Dorsey, the lieutenant who Guthrie says told him and Janusz that officers believed Perez Jr. had killed his father, has been promoted to captain and is now chief of police of Fontana, overseeing 188 sworn officers, according to its website.
The system working as intended.
This is the hierarchy of competence I keep hearing about.
This is the hierarchy of competence I keep hearing about.
The underlying thing folks
miss is - competence in what. Near as I can tell, they were quite competent in what city leadership wanted.
The Chinese have the right to complain about their leaders.
We don't because we choose them willingly.
Crime goes down, the poors don't riot and that's all that matters.
Crime goes down, the poors don't riot and that's all that matters.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!
> We don't because we choose them willingly
I mean technically Russia does have elections.
I mean technically Russia does have elections.
And cops wonder why people don't trust them.
I dont think cops wonder about that at all
[deleted]
The city is locally referred to as Fontucky, evidently for good reason.
I believe it got that name because of the KKK chapter that was based there.
People will want to draw the line in different places, but to me one of the most heinously inexcusable boundaries is when the police lie about the laws and the process.
Ex: "If you confess, it will just be just a week in jail, and if you don't, you'll be executed. And your agedmother will have to pay the fines, making her homeless."
Ex: "If you confess, it will just be just a week in jail, and if you don't, you'll be executed. And your agedmother will have to pay the fines, making her homeless."
Not in the USA, since the 19th century but especially since Miranda v. Arizona:
"[A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the Defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege." -Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477 (1966).
If the detectives make any kind of promises or threats then your lawyer will be able to suppress the entire interview.
Here is the waiver sheet used by the US Treasury, and this is similar to the waiver sheets used by police departments all over the USA, it reads "I understand the statement of my rights above as they have been read and explained to me and I waive them freely and voluntarily, without threat or intimidation, and without any promise of reward or immunity."
https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2022-...
"[A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the Defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege." -Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477 (1966).
If the detectives make any kind of promises or threats then your lawyer will be able to suppress the entire interview.
Here is the waiver sheet used by the US Treasury, and this is similar to the waiver sheets used by police departments all over the USA, it reads "I understand the statement of my rights above as they have been read and explained to me and I waive them freely and voluntarily, without threat or intimidation, and without any promise of reward or immunity."
https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2022-...
The United States Courts don't think that having a 50 year sentence over your head, and being offered a 5-10 year plea deal instead, is cajoling. When you take a plea (with the judge knowing all of the above and that you were threatened with a 40 year 'trial tax' if you didn't take the plea) you literally have to swear in court no in answer to the judge asking "Has anyone forced, threatened, or coerced you in any way into pleading guilty?" even though it is the judge who will personally add 45 years to your sentence if you don't take the plea.
This falls under the "voluntariness requirement" as part of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Rule 11(b)(2) requires that the court "address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement)."
The threat of 40 years of your life (basically a death sentence, you will probably die in that time, many you know and love will die in that time, you will not be able to restart any sort of life if you don't die) because you chose to exercise your right to trial instead of pleading guilty is not considered a threat, coercion, or cajoling by the United State Federal Justice system.
This voluntariness inquiry is a key part of what's known as the "Rule 11 colloquy" - the series of questions and statements that must occur between the judge and defendant before a guilty plea can be accepted.
Plea deals/plea bargaining was not legal at the start of the United States and was actually considered unconstitutional. The practice wasn't officially recognized by the Supreme Court as legitimate until 1970 in Brady v. United States on the grounds that not EVERY plea is coercion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11
https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-tri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jackson
This falls under the "voluntariness requirement" as part of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Rule 11(b)(2) requires that the court "address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement)."
The threat of 40 years of your life (basically a death sentence, you will probably die in that time, many you know and love will die in that time, you will not be able to restart any sort of life if you don't die) because you chose to exercise your right to trial instead of pleading guilty is not considered a threat, coercion, or cajoling by the United State Federal Justice system.
This voluntariness inquiry is a key part of what's known as the "Rule 11 colloquy" - the series of questions and statements that must occur between the judge and defendant before a guilty plea can be accepted.
Plea deals/plea bargaining was not legal at the start of the United States and was actually considered unconstitutional. The practice wasn't officially recognized by the Supreme Court as legitimate until 1970 in Brady v. United States on the grounds that not EVERY plea is coercion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11
https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-tri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jackson
This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. Which I know makes the name kind of vestigial but it's at least more honest about the transaction. Both sides are negotiating based on the perceived time and monetary effort, and chance of conviction.
Someone who is innocent may (unfortunately) find it their best course of action to take a plea deal and they shouldn't have to falsely admit their guilt to accept it. It's not perfect but it removes a lot of the coercive elements from the transaction.
Someone who is innocent may (unfortunately) find it their best course of action to take a plea deal and they shouldn't have to falsely admit their guilt to accept it. It's not perfect but it removes a lot of the coercive elements from the transaction.
They are considered somewhat differently which is why some statutes/laws have a clause 'or plead guilty to'.
I don't see how it removes in any way that the threat of imposition of the trial tax is a threat. If you can receive a 5 or 50 year sentence for the exact same crime, with the exact same circumstances other than taking a plea, the extra 45 years can not be considered anything but an explicit threat to take the plea. Or that pleas were considered unconstitutional at the founding of the US and only made legal in the 1960s.
The government only allows pleas for businesses that include a non admission of guilt. Admission of guilt is required as part of the Federal plea process, otherwise defendants could retain too many appeal rights (when you admit guilt from that point on you must prove a much higher 'actual innocence' legal standard on appeal and none of the easier standards like tainted evidence, corrupt officials, improper procedures can be applied to your case).
I don't see how it removes in any way that the threat of imposition of the trial tax is a threat. If you can receive a 5 or 50 year sentence for the exact same crime, with the exact same circumstances other than taking a plea, the extra 45 years can not be considered anything but an explicit threat to take the plea. Or that pleas were considered unconstitutional at the founding of the US and only made legal in the 1960s.
The government only allows pleas for businesses that include a non admission of guilt. Admission of guilt is required as part of the Federal plea process, otherwise defendants could retain too many appeal rights (when you admit guilt from that point on you must prove a much higher 'actual innocence' legal standard on appeal and none of the easier standards like tainted evidence, corrupt officials, improper procedures can be applied to your case).
Sorry, come again? What is a "trial tax"? You mean if you opt to go to trial, plead not guilty, and you lose then they're threatening that the penalty could be more severe? Is that the "tax"?
Maybe it's just me, but if I were falsely accused, I'd take a jury trial in a heartbeat over making a false confession. Just on principle alone. I understand why a guilty defendant might take a plea bargain, but it blows my mind that this works on some people who are innocent.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were falsely accused, I'd take a jury trial in a heartbeat over making a false confession. Just on principle alone. I understand why a guilty defendant might take a plea bargain, but it blows my mind that this works on some people who are innocent.
Prosecutors will argue exactly your point, that no innocent person would take a plea deal or confess to a crime they didn't do. But lots of research is demonstrating the opposite. Keep in mind that once police and prosecutors believe you probably are the one who committed the crime, they will usually stop investigating any alternate theories or people, and only focus on building their case against you - and sometimes, even withhold exonerating evidence. So if you do choose a trial, everything that is presented will be pointing at you and you alone, you can try to raise an alternate theory but nobody in authority will back you up. It's a very difficult spot to be in.
No doubt it's difficult, and in countries like Russia it's downright impossible to defend your innocence successfully under such circumstances. But I think if you ever find yourself in such a situation, you have no choice but to stand on the truth, on principle. It's better to go down fighting than to submit. And in game theory terms, there is at least a potential upside to fighting the charge, even if the potential downside is worse. There is no further upside to pleading guilty to something you didn't do.
I'll tell you this... the judge could tell the jury to ignore it, or declare a mistrial, but if someone had offered me a plea bargain for something I was innocent of, I would tell the jury that I'd refused it. Whether that was stricken from the record or not, at that point you're a political prisoner and you've done all you honestly can.
I'll tell you this... the judge could tell the jury to ignore it, or declare a mistrial, but if someone had offered me a plea bargain for something I was innocent of, I would tell the jury that I'd refused it. Whether that was stricken from the record or not, at that point you're a political prisoner and you've done all you honestly can.
[deleted]
Yes. In the USA the Feds set extremely high sentence lengths (30-50 years is common). They then offer a plea for 5-10. If you don't take the plea and go to trial and lose, your sentence (for the exact same crime and events that they offered you 5-10) is raised to 30-50. It is called the trail tax, you can Google it. In the US a person exercising their constitutional rights is considered during sentencing to be worth more time in prison than the actual crime/acts committed. Because remember, the judge would accept 5-10 as a reasonable sentence for the crime/acts committed IF it was a plea, but sentences to 30-50 if it is a trial. The criminal acts committed are still the same, only in one case the person has the trial tax imposed. Going to trial is considered WORSE than the crime by American judges.
You might reconsider when you and your public defender is up against the federal government that rarely loses at trial.
This is the point of trial by jury. I've served on juries, though never been tried in front of one.
If we were talking about something where I had actually broken a law, I'd expect to lose. But if it were truly a case of mistaken identity? I'd almost certainly defend myself and be confident no jury would convict me.
It's possible that a lot of people don't have sufficient skills to pore through legal books and case histories the way we pore through examples of massive SQL queries, but I'm sure I'd be up to it. And thus I would never concede to a plea bargain for something I hadn't done. Moreover, the whole concept of doing so is so anathema that I wouldn't care if it was a choice between admitting false guilt or execution (as it was in the show trials of the Soviet Union)... I would tell em to execute me. There are things I'm not willing to live with, like making a false confession, so you had better fuckin kill me.
If we were talking about something where I had actually broken a law, I'd expect to lose. But if it were truly a case of mistaken identity? I'd almost certainly defend myself and be confident no jury would convict me.
It's possible that a lot of people don't have sufficient skills to pore through legal books and case histories the way we pore through examples of massive SQL queries, but I'm sure I'd be up to it. And thus I would never concede to a plea bargain for something I hadn't done. Moreover, the whole concept of doing so is so anathema that I wouldn't care if it was a choice between admitting false guilt or execution (as it was in the show trials of the Soviet Union)... I would tell em to execute me. There are things I'm not willing to live with, like making a false confession, so you had better fuckin kill me.
The most tech bro hubris I've ever seen.
It's not a "tech bro" attitude to say you would prefer to die than to plead guilty to false charges. It's not a new attitude, either. It is an ancient attitude in western philosophy, going back at least to Socrates. Without individual determination to stand by the truth in the face of an arbitrary authority, there can be no just law, only power. A lot of individuals have had to die for truth and justice. Many were quite capable of defending themselves but the option wasn't available. That doesn't mean they didn't comport themselves well.
So you are cool with your mom dying alone without you there for support because you want to keep your reputation? Your dad? Your wife/kids being on their own without your support for 45 years?
You realize people that represent themselves are fools? Court isn't about smarts, it's about knowing how to play the game, your relationship with the judge, all kinds of factors. Heck if you word things just slightly wrong, you are hit and your winning argument is ignored. And a judge won't help you get to the correct wording.
You realize people that represent themselves are fools? Court isn't about smarts, it's about knowing how to play the game, your relationship with the judge, all kinds of factors. Heck if you word things just slightly wrong, you are hit and your winning argument is ignored. And a judge won't help you get to the correct wording.
What about my mom and dad's reputation? What about not wanting my kids to believe their father committed some crime? On the whole, I'd rather them know I was innocent and wrongly accused, yes.
I spoke about jury trials, not about court procedure.
I spoke about jury trials, not about court procedure.
When police have a false story that your own lawyer and everyone around you seems to buy, you might then falsely admit guilt. Knowing a lawyer so well that they believe your words above anyone's is a rare privilege.
Don't forget that lawyers that present cases before a judge day after day are get a form of 'the trial tax' imposed on them if they take cases to jury. They are very much biased to accept pleas.
The point of the plea deal is that you aren't pleading to "the exact same crime." For example maybe you're charged with 2nd degree murder, with extenuating circumstances of using a firearm, and that's what you'll be on trial for, facing 50 years. Unless you plead to involuntary manslaughter, with a 7 year max but the prosecutor will recommend 4 because you cooperated. Just an example, I'm making up the numbers. The whole thing is very slimy and coercive, not defending the system, I'm simply explaining why your argument is flawed.
> This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing.
No. Not even close.
Instead, plea deals need to be made illegal. Prosecutors who use plea deals in more than 2% of their cases in a given calendar year should face loss of law license for life, and 10 years in prison. It should be aggressively enforced and a strict liability crime (no "I lost track" excuses).
DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial, and they would be much less permissive of cops who were filing borderline horseshit, who were refusing to use their discretion. Legislators would be less able to keep bad laws on the books, were it not for pervasive plea bargaining.
In my own county, I heard with my own ears the DA bragging about how they do about 4000 cases per year, but take fewer than 30 to trial. Changing the ritual words that need to be spoken isn't a solution to anything.
No. Not even close.
Instead, plea deals need to be made illegal. Prosecutors who use plea deals in more than 2% of their cases in a given calendar year should face loss of law license for life, and 10 years in prison. It should be aggressively enforced and a strict liability crime (no "I lost track" excuses).
DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial, and they would be much less permissive of cops who were filing borderline horseshit, who were refusing to use their discretion. Legislators would be less able to keep bad laws on the books, were it not for pervasive plea bargaining.
In my own county, I heard with my own ears the DA bragging about how they do about 4000 cases per year, but take fewer than 30 to trial. Changing the ritual words that need to be spoken isn't a solution to anything.
> DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial
That's the whole reason that the entire plea system is in place. Trials are so expensive and justice system is so inefficiently organized that everything would go to a standstill without the pleas. You'd have to first modernize justice system to work in more European way before you can abolish pleas.
That's the whole reason that the entire plea system is in place. Trials are so expensive and justice system is so inefficiently organized that everything would go to a standstill without the pleas. You'd have to first modernize justice system to work in more European way before you can abolish pleas.
So, rephrasing: fair trials in the USA are actually a comforting myth, and you won't get one. Occasionally they will do one to keep the myth alive, but the reality is that due process is dead, and if the DA accuses you of something you have no recourse. Because of some legacy paperwork, they're technically not allowed to just chuck you in the slammer unless you admit to the crime, so they threaten you until any reasonable person would confess out of self preservation.
Real bastion of freedom, the United States.
Real bastion of freedom, the United States.
That's not how it works either.
Plea deals hold their extortive power through the fact that it's often the only way people can get out of jail pre-trial when they can't afford excessive bail. But rather than doing bail reform which would fix that problem, we have the left getting rid of bail entirely in situations where it is inappropriate to do so. This means violent criminals can wreak more mayhem while released awaiting trial so that the right can complain about it and we'll swing right back to excessive bail.
The bail bondsman industry is basically this gigantic leach sucking bail money out of our country, but it has lobbyists and can't be banned outright. Bail is not supposed to be a pre-conviction fine, but when you have to go to a bail bondsman you don't get your bail money back even if you show for trial. If you could pony up the cash in its entirety, it's just "held", and you get it if you show for trial. Even if convicted, you get it back (it's not a fine).
Making bail bonding illegal would be a good start to fixing the problem, but it's politically unviable. Attack plea bargains first, DAs and prosecutors can't put up the same kind of political fight that the bonding industry can.
Your dumb rhetoric makes the problem worse, because everyone can tell it's made up horseshit and if you're lying about the details they figure you're lying about the problem too.
Plea deals hold their extortive power through the fact that it's often the only way people can get out of jail pre-trial when they can't afford excessive bail. But rather than doing bail reform which would fix that problem, we have the left getting rid of bail entirely in situations where it is inappropriate to do so. This means violent criminals can wreak more mayhem while released awaiting trial so that the right can complain about it and we'll swing right back to excessive bail.
The bail bondsman industry is basically this gigantic leach sucking bail money out of our country, but it has lobbyists and can't be banned outright. Bail is not supposed to be a pre-conviction fine, but when you have to go to a bail bondsman you don't get your bail money back even if you show for trial. If you could pony up the cash in its entirety, it's just "held", and you get it if you show for trial. Even if convicted, you get it back (it's not a fine).
Making bail bonding illegal would be a good start to fixing the problem, but it's politically unviable. Attack plea bargains first, DAs and prosecutors can't put up the same kind of political fight that the bonding industry can.
Your dumb rhetoric makes the problem worse, because everyone can tell it's made up horseshit and if you're lying about the details they figure you're lying about the problem too.
Exactly.
> Trials are so expensive and justice system is so
But trials are the point. If you're not doing trials, what the fuck are you even doing? If you can only afford so many trials, then only make that many indictments, and make sure you're only indicting the ones that matter. If somehow, you still need to do more, well then this will force the public and the government to spend the money to scale up the justice system so you can do more trials.
They don't want that to happen though, because if most of these plea deals went to trial, the public would discover just how much horseshit the charges were in the first place. They don't want it, because if they went to trial we'd see so much jury nullification it would all be for nought.
> ou'd have to first modernize justice system to work in more European way
There's nothing about the European way that much impresses me. One wonders what you see in it... is it that you see the results and mistake those for a product of the system, when they're just in large part a product of a different people/culture that can't be transferred to the US no matter how much you wish it so?
But trials are the point. If you're not doing trials, what the fuck are you even doing? If you can only afford so many trials, then only make that many indictments, and make sure you're only indicting the ones that matter. If somehow, you still need to do more, well then this will force the public and the government to spend the money to scale up the justice system so you can do more trials.
They don't want that to happen though, because if most of these plea deals went to trial, the public would discover just how much horseshit the charges were in the first place. They don't want it, because if they went to trial we'd see so much jury nullification it would all be for nought.
> ou'd have to first modernize justice system to work in more European way
There's nothing about the European way that much impresses me. One wonders what you see in it... is it that you see the results and mistake those for a product of the system, when they're just in large part a product of a different people/culture that can't be transferred to the US no matter how much you wish it so?
> One wonders what you see in it
It's more about what I don't see. Plea deals, bail bonds industry, treating extorted confession as a solid proof, prison sentences to add up to more than a reasonable expected lifespan, discovering truth not being a goal of the trial, electability of judges, being judged by unprepared impressionable idiots aka jury. The whole thing is a sinister theatre that tries to keep the form of wild times when people didn't know any better while introducing so many ways for the parties to suck money out of the process at expense of the accuser, accused and the taxpayer. No justice system is perfect but US (and UK) one is so far that it's grotesque.
It's more about what I don't see. Plea deals, bail bonds industry, treating extorted confession as a solid proof, prison sentences to add up to more than a reasonable expected lifespan, discovering truth not being a goal of the trial, electability of judges, being judged by unprepared impressionable idiots aka jury. The whole thing is a sinister theatre that tries to keep the form of wild times when people didn't know any better while introducing so many ways for the parties to suck money out of the process at expense of the accuser, accused and the taxpayer. No justice system is perfect but US (and UK) one is so far that it's grotesque.
This can sometimes happen.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
Yea, because they consider threatening death coercive. But funnily enough, a 50+ years in prison threat when the state knows you will die in prison due to age/health, not considered coercive and doesn't qualify. It's the threat of physically being put to death that puts it over the line for this sort of plea for the courts to recognize the threat being made as 'coercive'. So The Justice System absolutely understands that pleas come with implicit threats.
Or you can explain that as 'this can sometimes happen'.
Or you can explain that as 'this can sometimes happen'.
> Not in the USA, since the 19th century but especially since Miranda v. Arizona
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because the problem did not abruptly vanish in 1966.
For example, Marty Tankleff, a then-teenager wrongfully convicted in 1990 for the murder of his parents. Even thought a defense lawyer arrived before Police lied to him that his father had named him as the attacker before falling unconscious, and even though a defense lawyer arrived before he could be tricked into signing a confession, the unsigned confession was still core to the prosecutions' case.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because the problem did not abruptly vanish in 1966.
For example, Marty Tankleff, a then-teenager wrongfully convicted in 1990 for the murder of his parents. Even thought a defense lawyer arrived before Police lied to him that his father had named him as the attacker before falling unconscious, and even though a defense lawyer arrived before he could be tricked into signing a confession, the unsigned confession was still core to the prosecutions' case.
You were mentioning a boundary and line being drawn, I think what's trying to be said is that line is already drawn. No problem abruptly vanishes just because it becomes illegal. It doesn't help that your example is 30 years old,
police and police oversight have gotten far better since then.
Do you have any evidence that police are better behaved or that oversight has improved?
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, police use civil forfeiture to steal more stuff than all criminals combined.
That wasn’t true in the 1990s.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, police use civil forfeiture to steal more stuff than all criminals combined.
That wasn’t true in the 1990s.
The percentage of the population imprisoned or under some sort of parole has increased a lot in the last 30 years, either the police and the system they are part of has worsened, or the population has.
I'm betting the police.
I'm betting the police.
The statistics back you up. Violent crime in the USA is about what it was in early 70s, far below it's peak in the late 80s/early 90s. [Most of the decline seems to be linked to legalized abortion and elimination of leaded gasoline.]
"If the detectives make any kind of promises or threats then your lawyer will be able to suppress the entire interview."
If you can prove it. This is often the tricky part.
If you can prove it. This is often the tricky part.
This kind of interrogation is held at a police station.
They are recorded - a lot of countries outside the US actually require it be recorded and if it is not, the interview and anything said in it are simply inadmissible.
Even in the US, recording is standard practice for any meaningful felony. Unlike body worn cameras, it does not get magically lost, and when it does, the interview is generally not admitted, or a defense lawyer tears it to shreds if the detective tries to use his notes. While there are always cases of recordings "being lost" or whatever, the rate here is very low, compared to body worn cameras or anything else.
The case where they don't do recording is usually resource related.
There are around 20,000 law enforcement agencies in the US. 80% of them have less than 25 full time employees 15% of those have 1 full time employee.
While most still do recording, it might only be for major felonies or whatever because they don't have the manpower to have handle recording 24/7.
Given that, you won't achieve 100% compliance without something drastic (for example, funding and paying for 24/7 video recording in every department). Even there, at best you'll just end up with only the cases where software/hardware went wrong.
Note that i have no love for police (actually, much the opposite), but i'm also realistic - i'm not sure it's easy to solve the problem of having tons of small, low-budget police departments, be required to record.
(the UK, by comparison, has 43 regional law enforcement forces, and is down to 300 police stations or something like this)
They are recorded - a lot of countries outside the US actually require it be recorded and if it is not, the interview and anything said in it are simply inadmissible.
Even in the US, recording is standard practice for any meaningful felony. Unlike body worn cameras, it does not get magically lost, and when it does, the interview is generally not admitted, or a defense lawyer tears it to shreds if the detective tries to use his notes. While there are always cases of recordings "being lost" or whatever, the rate here is very low, compared to body worn cameras or anything else.
The case where they don't do recording is usually resource related.
There are around 20,000 law enforcement agencies in the US. 80% of them have less than 25 full time employees 15% of those have 1 full time employee.
While most still do recording, it might only be for major felonies or whatever because they don't have the manpower to have handle recording 24/7.
Given that, you won't achieve 100% compliance without something drastic (for example, funding and paying for 24/7 video recording in every department). Even there, at best you'll just end up with only the cases where software/hardware went wrong.
Note that i have no love for police (actually, much the opposite), but i'm also realistic - i'm not sure it's easy to solve the problem of having tons of small, low-budget police departments, be required to record.
(the UK, by comparison, has 43 regional law enforcement forces, and is down to 300 police stations or something like this)
In the USA our courts have something called 'Good Faith'. They take the word of law enforcement on 'Good faith' because they are official officers of the law. Chain of custody broken on your evidence? Well, the court will take it on 'good faith' that the police department still did things right, because otherwise they would have to throw out the case, and in the USA there is nothing worse than that. Video evidence that conflict with officer testimony? Most times the court with side with 'good faith' in the officer's testimony. Go look up 'good faith' in Lexus/Nexus and read some crazy court cases.
There are plenty of areas of the police station that do not have recorded audio. Yes, the official interview would/should, but that doesn't mean they didn't start off the record in another area.
If it's already illegal but difficult to prove then making it "even more" illegal isn't going to help.
Clear and simple rules help a lot.
If you say “I want to talk to a lawyer” - anything after that is not admissible. Full stop. This is generally enforced.
Same with Miranda warnings.
The problem is clear rules tend to be a bit arbitrary.
Can you change the wording on a Miranda warning a bit? Why that specific wording?
So instead we have very unclear, but more constitutionally rigorous rules.
If you say “I want to talk to a lawyer” - anything after that is not admissible. Full stop. This is generally enforced.
Same with Miranda warnings.
The problem is clear rules tend to be a bit arbitrary.
Can you change the wording on a Miranda warning a bit? Why that specific wording?
So instead we have very unclear, but more constitutionally rigorous rules.
I bet it would be a lot less common if evidence that it happened meant the end of the officer’s career, loss of pension, and 10 years in prison (general population, preferably with a public announcement of why they are serving time).
On top of that, they could add some sort of chain of custody for the accused. For instance gaps in the recording between arrest and trial (solo bathroom breaks and conferring with defense attorneys excepted) could mean the charges are dropped.
On top of that, they could add some sort of chain of custody for the accused. For instance gaps in the recording between arrest and trial (solo bathroom breaks and conferring with defense attorneys excepted) could mean the charges are dropped.
If it's hard to obtain or provide evidence, increasing the consequences isn't goint to be a deterrent. You have to make it easier to prove. Which means you either need to:
* Lower the standard for proof
* Make it harder to to avoid public scrutiny for covered interactions
* Lower the standard for proof
* Make it harder to to avoid public scrutiny for covered interactions
Hold up, who said anything about merely increasing the punishment for already-illegal acts?
It's a significant difference when those acts become impractical, because you can't spout all the other smaller lies which are needed to shock and scare the victim into a state where they'll fall for the big ones.
It's a significant difference when those acts become impractical, because you can't spout all the other smaller lies which are needed to shock and scare the victim into a state where they'll fall for the big ones.
If you can spout the big lies you can spout the small lies. The size of the lie has no impact. Preventing the lies in the first place regardless of size requires that you can
1. provide evidence of those lies.
2. create consequences for spouting the lies
1. provide evidence of those lies.
2. create consequences for spouting the lies
Not talking to them wihthout your lawyer is a start.
Serious question: Is there any legitimate reason for such a document to exist? Why would you want to waive your right to remain silent, or your right to consult a lawyer?
Because sometimes you do not want to remain silent and instead present evidence towards your innocence, to strengthen the presumed innocence and refute the evidence towards guilt.
Yeah but a signature on that document is probably effectively binding.
It's awful hard to say they threatened you when you just signed a paper that said they didn't.
It's awful hard to say they threatened you when you just signed a paper that said they didn't.
Or they can just fake your signature.
Good luck proving it's not yours.
There will be witnesses. Maybe even video of you signing something.
And that's if the judge is even acting in good faith, which is not common.
Good luck proving it's not yours.
There will be witnesses. Maybe even video of you signing something.
And that's if the judge is even acting in good faith, which is not common.
Been there, done that (forged signature on comparatively minor court documents). The lady behind the desk spent a half hour apparently not understanding how there could be a signature on that piece of paper if it wasn't mine, and all said and done the few hundred dollars the court was extorting me for were far cheaper than trying to fight it.
For prison or something, I'd hope the forged signature would be contestable for the average person, but I'm not optimistic.
For prison or something, I'd hope the forged signature would be contestable for the average person, but I'm not optimistic.
This is basically a police EULA?
Who knew it was so easy to surrender your constitutional rights. Just a single signature and they are gone.
No, it is a warning and waiver not a license.
When lies of that nature are permitted by law, it throws into question the entire legal process. How is a defendant to know whether, say, the plea bargain they're being offered by the DA will in fact be honored, when the previous (false) promises made by the police weren't?
If a company representative lies and tells me the product comes with a ten year warranty when in fact it's only five years, that's fraud. You'd figure a lie with bigger consequences (jail, etc.) would be considered worse than fraud, but surprisingly not.
If a company representative lies and tells me the product comes with a ten year warranty when in fact it's only five years, that's fraud. You'd figure a lie with bigger consequences (jail, etc.) would be considered worse than fraud, but surprisingly not.
I don’t think a judge is required to accept a plea deal, so in a sense they are lies.
I was under the impression this was already either not allowed, or not explicitly disallowed but rarely happens because it could be seen as coercive and have the case thrown out. In the many hundreds of videos I've seen, interrogators usually do the OPPOSITE of this, trying to convince them that they aren't in trouble and it's no big deal, to make them relax and at-ease. The only time I recall something like your example is in movies, like The Interview (1998).
Prosecutors allowed to make the same bullshit threats to push for plea deals is an even worse version of this.
Don't forget filing two of the same charges and offer a "deal" for you to plead guilty to one of them.
Two different charges, not the same one. You can plead to unlawful firearm possession, or take a chance with unlawful firearm possession, brandishing a weapon and armed robbery.
It's convient how the Federal version and the State version on of the law for the exact same act differ just enough that 'they are totally not the same and don't violate double jeopardy' if you are retried for the same exact act in both jurisdictions. The justice system has 'by the strict definition' not 'the spirit of it' removed a lot of our constitutional rights.
The state and federal law don't have to differ at all. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the laws can be 100% the same and you still can get charged by both the state and the government. They ruled that the spirit of double jeopardy only applies within the same government entity.
Some states forbid filing charges if the federal government already did.
Some states forbid filing charges if the federal government already did.
As an adult citizen you should know your rights and the process.
Also obviously never talk to cops.
are you not allowed legal counsel in the US?
Never talk to the police. Do not "just give a statement" to get them to let you go.
Identify yourself when asked, ask for a lawyer, then shut up.
If communicating something to the police might be helpful for you, do that through your lawyer.
"You can beat the charges but you can't beat the ride"
Identify yourself when asked, ask for a lawyer, then shut up.
If communicating something to the police might be helpful for you, do that through your lawyer.
"You can beat the charges but you can't beat the ride"
> then shut up
The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has ruled that you cannot exercise your right to remain silent by merely remaining silent, and that the Prosecution can say things like "you didn't have an answer when asked questions".
To exercise your right to remain silent, the Court says, you must say "I am exercising my right to remain silent".
And don't say "I want a lawyer, dawg", or else the police will say they were unable to find you a canine who had passed the bar, and thus your request for counsel was not a serious one and that they are free to continue your interrogation... and the Court (in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court) will say that that was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of your request.
The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has ruled that you cannot exercise your right to remain silent by merely remaining silent, and that the Prosecution can say things like "you didn't have an answer when asked questions".
To exercise your right to remain silent, the Court says, you must say "I am exercising my right to remain silent".
And don't say "I want a lawyer, dawg", or else the police will say they were unable to find you a canine who had passed the bar, and thus your request for counsel was not a serious one and that they are free to continue your interrogation... and the Court (in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court) will say that that was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of your request.
Other readers, please note that none of the above is an exaggeration.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...
[deleted]
My father was a lawyer and I grew up hearing this advice. But then we ended up living in Texas when I became a stoner teen. I can't quite explain what its like to be on the side of the interstate for literally hours undergoing constant questioning and various forms of psychological torture. Splitting everyone up, questioning everyone to try to find inconsistencies. Multiple times I remember telling a cop "no, you are not allowed to do this, am I being detained?" And they can just respond "yes I am, no you're not, can I look through your car now?" In central nowhere texas, the cops are elite at this. Just all of us pretty much sobbing on the side of the road from the stress, pleading and pleading with them...
But I would live through that everyday of my life if I knew I would never have to get to the sometimes next chapter of this kind of thing: jail in a small Texas town. There I learned about both physical and psychological torture. But its too much to get into.
And yes I tried to fight the most egregious event of torture, spent alot of time talking to lawyer, explaining what happened to me. My stop was unlawful even in that case. But I came in with a some fancy Austin lawyer to Brownwood, TX and they all but laughed us out of the courtroom.
And even after all that, don't even get me started on how they extract your money and sanity for years and years if your lucky like me to get probation for an eighth oz of mushrooms. I was a special case because I ended up going to grad school and it was easy for me to work the weekends to make the money I needed to pay them that wasnt covered by my stipend. I am also so grateful I kept a spreadsheet of my payments to them, it truly truly saved me from more years and money. They are really good with all their paperwork, except for anything to do with paying them money.
But very important to realize in all this: this is not at all exceptional, and I am a card-carrying privileged white man. This is just how it is.
But I would live through that everyday of my life if I knew I would never have to get to the sometimes next chapter of this kind of thing: jail in a small Texas town. There I learned about both physical and psychological torture. But its too much to get into.
And yes I tried to fight the most egregious event of torture, spent alot of time talking to lawyer, explaining what happened to me. My stop was unlawful even in that case. But I came in with a some fancy Austin lawyer to Brownwood, TX and they all but laughed us out of the courtroom.
And even after all that, don't even get me started on how they extract your money and sanity for years and years if your lucky like me to get probation for an eighth oz of mushrooms. I was a special case because I ended up going to grad school and it was easy for me to work the weekends to make the money I needed to pay them that wasnt covered by my stipend. I am also so grateful I kept a spreadsheet of my payments to them, it truly truly saved me from more years and money. They are really good with all their paperwork, except for anything to do with paying them money.
But very important to realize in all this: this is not at all exceptional, and I am a card-carrying privileged white man. This is just how it is.
Can confirm, 100% Texas right there. It is still worse for non-white men though, but even that won't save you here.
> I came in with a some fancy Austin lawyer to Brownwood, TX and they all but laughed us out of the courtroom.
Can you expand on this?
Can you expand on this?
Small towns are run more like dictatorships than democratic institutions. The smaller it is, the more true it is.
[deleted]
I know, but I wanted details in this specific example.
I never did a full trial, but my lawyer really wanted to do some kind of pre-trial appeal thing after hearing the nature of my stop (forget exactly what it was called, I believe it was a Texas specific process though).
I was pulled over because I passed an officer going the speed limit of 65-70mph. He was stopped on the other side of the road, I passed at that speed, and he immediately started to pull me over because he said he "didn't think my seatbelt was on". My lawyer made a very good case that it would be somewhat impossible for him to see one way or another, using pictures of where I passed, as well the model of my car.
Because it wasn't a trial, there was no jury, it was just the judge's call. I remember feeling so hopeful after we went to court because our argument seemed good and we barely heard anything from the DA to counter it. But it was still denied. My lawyer really wanted to go to trial after that, but I was too scared at that point.
I was pulled over because I passed an officer going the speed limit of 65-70mph. He was stopped on the other side of the road, I passed at that speed, and he immediately started to pull me over because he said he "didn't think my seatbelt was on". My lawyer made a very good case that it would be somewhat impossible for him to see one way or another, using pictures of where I passed, as well the model of my car.
Because it wasn't a trial, there was no jury, it was just the judge's call. I remember feeling so hopeful after we went to court because our argument seemed good and we barely heard anything from the DA to counter it. But it was still denied. My lawyer really wanted to go to trial after that, but I was too scared at that point.
I'm sorry about what happened to you!
An informative and entertaining watch. Never answer questions from the police. Also, if you are arrested, keep your mouth shut. Don't say anything about anything on the phone or while in custody, even to other inmates. When you call your lawyer or family, don't say anything more than "I've been arrested and need a laywer" don't say "I screwed up" or anything really. Tell all this to your kids and spouse.
Required watching imho, I watch this atleast once a year.
Every person in the United States, whether a citizen or just visiting, would do well to watch this.
It's not always that simple. I promise you, if armed police are threatening to harm your family you will tell them anything they want and sign anything they want to get them to stop.
In the USA you might be able to get the statements thrown out afterwards, but as long as the police didn't actually commit any violence then they are likely to get promoted.
And you have to be pragmatic; you might be able to get the charges thrown out, but you could easily spend a decade or more in pretrial detention to do it.
In the USA you might be able to get the statements thrown out afterwards, but as long as the police didn't actually commit any violence then they are likely to get promoted.
And you have to be pragmatic; you might be able to get the charges thrown out, but you could easily spend a decade or more in pretrial detention to do it.
> if armed police are threatening to harm your family you will tell them anything they want and sign anything they want to get them to stop
Don’t do this. If the charges are serious, if the motivation is so serious they’ll use illegal violence, say nothing. Demand a lawyer.
Where I disagree with this is in super minor cases. I took a left without indicating, once, and got pulled over by the town pub. I figured they were looking for drunks, so I co-operated; the worst I was admitting to was a traffic ticket.
Don’t do this. If the charges are serious, if the motivation is so serious they’ll use illegal violence, say nothing. Demand a lawyer.
Where I disagree with this is in super minor cases. I took a left without indicating, once, and got pulled over by the town pub. I figured they were looking for drunks, so I co-operated; the worst I was admitting to was a traffic ticket.
The charges don't have to be serious for the police to use illegal violence. They do it regularly for minor cases.
If they are threatening violence, you can be sure your demands for a lawyer are going to go unheard.
If they are threatening violence, you can be sure your demands for a lawyer are going to go unheard.
Do you really mean never?
I've run into a lot of people who have heard that advice and take it very literally, to the point that when I've asked them what they would do if an officer responding to an explosion and fire at their workplace asked the people who got out if they knew of anyone still in the building said that they would not answer without getting a lawyer first.
I've run into a lot of people who have heard that advice and take it very literally, to the point that when I've asked them what they would do if an officer responding to an explosion and fire at their workplace asked the people who got out if they knew of anyone still in the building said that they would not answer without getting a lawyer first.
It sounds absurd, but people have been arrested or even killed for less cooperation than this. Blame the system, not the people who are trying to avoid being destroyed by the system.
Law enforcement has become more and more hostile towards citizens with time, not less. Wariness is the only way to navigate it, unfortunately.
Law enforcement has become more and more hostile towards citizens with time, not less. Wariness is the only way to navigate it, unfortunately.
Emergency situations where you are trying to coordinate is maybe the only time I would talk to a cop, and if you can talk to a fire fighter or EMT instead I would do that.
In the case of the fire I wouldn't say anything except "Little Timmy is still inside, on the second floor". Do not discuss how the fire started or anything like that.
In the case of the fire I wouldn't say anything except "Little Timmy is still inside, on the second floor". Do not discuss how the fire started or anything like that.
Tell the firefighters, what are the police going to do?
It's extremely sad that things work like that in a supposedly democratic country.
“Never talk to the police” is impractical. Not everyone pulled over on a traffic stop has the time and money to be obstructive. (Or afford the ticket they might smile their way out of.)
Better, maybe: never concede. And if it goes beyond the sundry, call counsel. (If you don’t have counsel, weigh being technically correct and massively inconvenienced against being pleasant but subordinate.)
TL; DR If they’re asking about felonies, shut up. If they’re telling you off for a tail light, ehhh!
Better, maybe: never concede. And if it goes beyond the sundry, call counsel. (If you don’t have counsel, weigh being technically correct and massively inconvenienced against being pleasant but subordinate.)
TL; DR If they’re asking about felonies, shut up. If they’re telling you off for a tail light, ehhh!
This is terrible advice, friend.
> This is terrible advice, friend
Why? I say this as someone with personal counsel on retainer, and who has been pulled over but not gotten a ticket in a decade. I’m legally conservative but also practical.
Most people don’t have the time to be arraigned every time they might have gone five over. “Never talk to the police” means every random stop turns into interrogation. That simply isn’t the baseline risk for most of us.
Why? I say this as someone with personal counsel on retainer, and who has been pulled over but not gotten a ticket in a decade. I’m legally conservative but also practical.
Most people don’t have the time to be arraigned every time they might have gone five over. “Never talk to the police” means every random stop turns into interrogation. That simply isn’t the baseline risk for most of us.
And I'm saying that as an award winning investigative journalist who focuses on transparency and police misconduct. This is the first time in years where I only have one lawsuit against a police agency. I also have counsel on retainer :)
I believe your advice is bad because it's being given to a wide audience that very likely doesn't know better.
I believe your advice is bad because it's being given to a wide audience that very likely doesn't know better.
[deleted]
It's not terrible advice, it's the same advice you will hear from many lawyers. If a cop pulls you over because you were blatantly speeding - saying nothing, or admitting to it and apologising, are both reasonable things to do. Never talking to police is a safer blanket decision, but you can have some grey area.
[deleted]
My trick when pulled over is to play not speaking the local language very well (in the US, that would be English). Worked 4 times out of 5, they just don't want to deal with this shit (didn't work in Israel, got a fine).
We just need brain scanning technology to extract and reconstruct memories directly. It's probably not far off.
There's a whole host of new potential investigative technology that may be right around the corner:
- memory extraction
- DNA to photograph / phenotype
- photograph to DNA
- environmental DNA recovery from exhalation, etc.
There's a whole host of new potential investigative technology that may be right around the corner:
- memory extraction
- DNA to photograph / phenotype
- photograph to DNA
- environmental DNA recovery from exhalation, etc.
>We just need brain scanning technology to extract and reconstruct memories directly. It's probably not far off.
Perfect way for the powerful to completely control the population as slaves.
If they can have total access to your every thought, they might as well stop the charade of treating you like a free person.
Perfect way for the powerful to completely control the population as slaves.
If they can have total access to your every thought, they might as well stop the charade of treating you like a free person.
Sounds like something you would say about your smartphone.
Memory extraction is likely impossible, as I expect that every brain encodes long-term memory slightly differently. There was a demonstration of partially decoding images from _surface memory_ that a subject was already thinking of, but that only works because they were reading off the visual cortex, which brains use to reconstruct scenes from long-term-memory and is better understood. [1]
That said, directly reading memories is unlikely to be necessary. In Daniel Suarez's Daemon/Freedom™, he proposes using fMRI and increasingly narrow questions to extract truthful information. The blood flow in our brains changes when we lie, and is much easier and faster to detect.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20111216184729/http://newscenter...
That said, directly reading memories is unlikely to be necessary. In Daniel Suarez's Daemon/Freedom™, he proposes using fMRI and increasingly narrow questions to extract truthful information. The blood flow in our brains changes when we lie, and is much easier and faster to detect.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20111216184729/http://newscenter...
Or we could invent a listening device that also serves as everyone's primary communications channel, and we could ensure everyone carries it with them at all times, and encourage them to record their most intimate thoughts with it, and people would love it so much they always kept it with them, even when they were sleeping...
We already have such a device, we call them smartphones.
>The blood flow in our brains changes when we lie
Except when we're innocent and anxious, or sociopathic and calm. or misguided and/or dellusional and believe our lies as truth.
In other words, the same pseudoscience as good old "lie detectors".
Except when we're innocent and anxious, or sociopathic and calm. or misguided and/or dellusional and believe our lies as truth.
In other words, the same pseudoscience as good old "lie detectors".
> In other words, the same pseudoscience as good old "lie detectors".
USG still uses that pseudoscientific nonsense in its security clearance process. They could save a whole lot of money by buying e-meters from the Church of Scientology, and achieve the same result.
USG still uses that pseudoscientific nonsense in its security clearance process. They could save a whole lot of money by buying e-meters from the Church of Scientology, and achieve the same result.
As I understand, the reason for using polgyraphs is psychological to see if you could easily be compromised by an adversary. If you can survive a polygraph session, you're perhaps also more resistant to blackmail or other coercion, whether you have anything to hide or not.
I think they just don't want to admit that they bought into a scam.
it's more likely that that kind of psuedotechnology would get promoted as a way to wash false or suspect testimony, like lie detectors were.
it's not even clear why you would want to anyways. Human recall is notoriously terrible.
it's not even clear why you would want to anyways. Human recall is notoriously terrible.
[deleted]
Hey congratulations you've stumbled upon the plot of Black Mirror S04E03 "Crocodile", wherein investigators can view the memory of witnesses to a crime. Spoiler: witnesses now get murdered, rendering the tech moot. But you have to make sure you kill all the witnesses, including the guinea pig in the room.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_(Black_Mirror)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_(Black_Mirror)
Sounds like a fantastic idea that couldn't possibly go wrong
> - memory extraction
And then police will stop you for a busted taillight and extract the memory of 76 counts of jaywalking.
But when Jeffrey Epstein v2.0 is caught, the scanner will mysteriously malfunction and he will also die in his cell, just like the V1.0 did.
Just like the current spying and tracking apparatus - great at finding blackmail and dirt on a random citizen, but it will never finding any evidence to convict a CEO, and never find who stole your bicycle in the hood.
And then police will stop you for a busted taillight and extract the memory of 76 counts of jaywalking.
But when Jeffrey Epstein v2.0 is caught, the scanner will mysteriously malfunction and he will also die in his cell, just like the V1.0 did.
Just like the current spying and tracking apparatus - great at finding blackmail and dirt on a random citizen, but it will never finding any evidence to convict a CEO, and never find who stole your bicycle in the hood.
Not far off?? Just imagine the insane amounts of training data needed to be accurate on that. Although brain scanning data to determine if a non-psychopath and non-narcissist is lying or telling the truth is probably not nearly as difficult
Remember when Tim Walz thought he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre? Or Hillary Clinton landing under sniper fire? Memory is unreliable.
IMO if it is legal for police to lie to me, it should be legal for me to lie to the police too. Under oath in a courtroom is a totally different thing.
The police lie under oath so consistently that attorneys have a word for it: "testilying."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury
That's a tricky proposal, because even if you might legally lie to police without direct repercussions, the same lie could easily--and quite reasonably--be introduced into into a later court case as evidence against you.
Imagine a prosecutor, or a juror during deliberations: "He lied to police about not owning a gun, and he lied with a fake alibi about being somewhere else at the time. Those aren't the actions of an innocent bystander."
Imagine a prosecutor, or a juror during deliberations: "He lied to police about not owning a gun, and he lied with a fake alibi about being somewhere else at the time. Those aren't the actions of an innocent bystander."
IANAL and jurisdictions differ but in general merely lying to the police is not illegal.
In theory, sure.
In practice, police will gladly make your life hell by charging you with obstruction of justice or a vague charge like disturbing the peace and let you sit in jail for a weekend until they drop the charges. There are countless ways in which they can mess with you, and they are legally unaccountable 99% of the time.
Better advice is simply do not engage with police, and know your rights.
In practice, police will gladly make your life hell by charging you with obstruction of justice or a vague charge like disturbing the peace and let you sit in jail for a weekend until they drop the charges. There are countless ways in which they can mess with you, and they are legally unaccountable 99% of the time.
Better advice is simply do not engage with police, and know your rights.
Make sure they're not feds. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Making false statements to police is a criminal offence in most places.
[deleted]
While it often is, ‘what you say can and will be used against you in court’.
The power dynamic is not even.
The power dynamic is not even.
In civilized countries as defendant you are free to lie as much as you want. The jury is there exactly for that reason. If you are charged with something you should be able to make any statements you want and even change them up to the trial. And only those statement should be used in trial.
Lying itself is not illegal, i.e. they cannot prosecute you based on the lie itself. But they can use your lying as unfavorable evidence for the case being pursued to nail you in the court.
It’s better to invoke the fifth to state you don’t answer questions without legal representation.
It’s better to invoke the fifth to state you don’t answer questions without legal representation.
Lying to a law enforcement officer is a misdemeanor in many US states, and lying to a federal officer is a federal crime.
[deleted]
Police lying about the law is one thing.
Lying to a suspect under explicit custody, e.g. “your buddy in the next room confessed” is fine. Policing stops working when we pedantically construct it, which leads to a predictable backlash that stifles civil liberties—hard to be free if you’re dead. (And I’m assuming we don’t provide paper rights. If a Harvey Weinstein can raise reasonable suspicion someone was untruthful, he’s off.)
Lying to a suspect under explicit custody, e.g. “your buddy in the next room confessed” is fine. Policing stops working when we pedantically construct it, which leads to a predictable backlash that stifles civil liberties—hard to be free if you’re dead. (And I’m assuming we don’t provide paper rights. If a Harvey Weinstein can raise reasonable suspicion someone was untruthful, he’s off.)
I don't understand what you're saying. Can you please expand on your statement? It reads, to me, that you're saying that if police don't lie, then civil society can break down? Alternate reading is that the cops can kill you?
I'm very confused by your statements.
I'm very confused by your statements.
>It reads, to me, that you're saying that if police don't lie, then civil society can break down?
He's saying that if police doesn't have some flexibility (like using such tricks to get a suspect to confess), criminals end up getting to roam free, and this, all other things being equal, ends in a way worse society than one where police is allowed to cheat suspects.
He's saying that if police doesn't have some flexibility (like using such tricks to get a suspect to confess), criminals end up getting to roam free, and this, all other things being equal, ends in a way worse society than one where police is allowed to cheat suspects.
> if police don't lie, then civil society can break down
Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma. In other cases, the cop may say something they thought was true but isn’t. Disentangling this admits the Fifth Amendment heavily tilts the table for the suspect.
> Alternate reading is that the cops can kill you?
Murder, in general, is illegal. Lying, in general, is not.
Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma. In other cases, the cop may say something they thought was true but isn’t. Disentangling this admits the Fifth Amendment heavily tilts the table for the suspect.
> Alternate reading is that the cops can kill you?
Murder, in general, is illegal. Lying, in general, is not.
Lying in order to get a financial benefit is called fraud and of course is generally illegal.
If lying to gain some financial benefit was illegal, the close to trillion dollar advertising industry wouldn't exist.
Ah, but that is ‘mere puffery’. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery]
It’s the difference between saying ‘I’ve got the best car ever, it’s amazing!’, and ‘my car has a V8’ when it does not.
It’s the difference between saying ‘I’ve got the best car ever, it’s amazing!’, and ‘my car has a V8’ when it does not.
The problem is different people have their own interpretations of the word "lying", including courts and judges.
> Lying in order to get a financial benefit is called fraud and of course is generally illegal
Sure. They’re not. They’re lying to get coöperation from criminal suspects for no financial gain. Similar but categorically different.
Should our diplomats be required to divulge state secrets if asked nicely? Even acknowledge them? This is HN—we’ve been proximate to or even held power, corporate potentially state. Policing is adversarial. No lying outside arrest, sure, but once in custody, the cops should be allowed to lie but not materially mislead you in respect of your rights. Anything else doesn’t work to the point that it gets replaced with popular backing.
Sure. They’re not. They’re lying to get coöperation from criminal suspects for no financial gain. Similar but categorically different.
Should our diplomats be required to divulge state secrets if asked nicely? Even acknowledge them? This is HN—we’ve been proximate to or even held power, corporate potentially state. Policing is adversarial. No lying outside arrest, sure, but once in custody, the cops should be allowed to lie but not materially mislead you in respect of your rights. Anything else doesn’t work to the point that it gets replaced with popular backing.
On a completely different note, why did you put the umlaut on cooperation?
It's two syllables, not a digraph.
> Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma.
Why is that legitimate?
Why is that legitimate?
Because without them you give every suspect a mens rea out on untrue statements inadvertently said by a cop. Until every cop has a law degree, that’s untenable.
What about a standard somewhere between "any inadvertent false statement of fact blows up everything" and "blatant intentional lying in an official capacity isn't entirely OK"?
> What about a standard somewhere between "any inadvertent false statement of fact blows up everything" and "blatant intentional lying isn't OK"?
I’m all ears!
I’m all ears!
Because it is convenient for society.
Sure but that argument could be equally extended to extremes like "why bother even trying people, we can just put all suspects in jail, 99% of them are guilty anyway."
It always felt like such a contradiction that police could lie to you but had to read you your miranda rights.
Apparently police are allowed some threshold of deception (e.g. can outright lie but can't pretend to be your lawyer) but since 99% of people don't know this it really undermines the purpose.
Like if the police can lie, but tell you that you get an attorney, how is a client supposed to know that your lawyer can't lie to you too?
Apparently police are allowed some threshold of deception (e.g. can outright lie but can't pretend to be your lawyer) but since 99% of people don't know this it really undermines the purpose.
Like if the police can lie, but tell you that you get an attorney, how is a client supposed to know that your lawyer can't lie to you too?
Because the lawyer is there for you, hopefully paid for by you and therefore independent.
If not, you have to assume the public defender is at least friends with the police and therefore may not have your best interests in mind. That system is fucked, but I'm not sure I know a solution for folks who can't afford representation. Thoughts?
If not, you have to assume the public defender is at least friends with the police and therefore may not have your best interests in mind. That system is fucked, but I'm not sure I know a solution for folks who can't afford representation. Thoughts?
The equivalent of “jury duty” for every lawyer who passed the bar in the state where they have to serve as defense counsel for whomever needs it.
> assume the public defender is at least friends with the police and therefore may not have your best interests in mind
What? Police fucking hate public defenders as a general rule. Like sure, a police officer might be familiar with a public defender who frequently works cases brought by that officer’s precinct. But it’s perfectly clear to both of them that they work in opposition. Absent a few extremely rural and/or corrupt cases I do not believe this friendship is often the case.
What? Police fucking hate public defenders as a general rule. Like sure, a police officer might be familiar with a public defender who frequently works cases brought by that officer’s precinct. But it’s perfectly clear to both of them that they work in opposition. Absent a few extremely rural and/or corrupt cases I do not believe this friendship is often the case.
I know that's what TV says, but my anectdata is the opposite of that.
I've known multiple attorneys in the public defenders office in three different courts. One rural, two very urban. They absolutely had relationships with both street officers and leadership in the precincts of the city and town.
I've known multiple attorneys in the public defenders office in three different courts. One rural, two very urban. They absolutely had relationships with both street officers and leadership in the precincts of the city and town.
>Like if the police can lie, but tell you that you get an attorney, how is a client supposed to know that your lawyer can't lie to you too?
Perhaps by educating themselves before they become a "client"?
Perhaps by educating themselves before they become a "client"?
How do you educate yourself from a jail cell?
Remote education?
This is one of the more famous cases I remember (won $16m payout from having spent 8 months in jail getting a regular beatdown from guards and other detainees):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Riley_Fox
This is the Illinois statute that prevents deception of minors, but not yet adults: 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1. This provision, effective January 1, 2022, renders any confession from a minor inadmissible in court if obtained through deception by law enforcement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Riley_Fox
This is the Illinois statute that prevents deception of minors, but not yet adults: 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1. This provision, effective January 1, 2022, renders any confession from a minor inadmissible in court if obtained through deception by law enforcement.
> Bradford says the officers in Yakima, Wash., claimed they had biological evidence that would prove he did it, and they weren't going to let him leave until he admitted it.
I had the opposite experience. They kept promising me I wouldn’t be arrested if I answered the questions and approved their searches, I did everything they wanted, nothing suggested any guilt, and then they arrested me anyways for 5 days before putting an ankle bracelet on me. I’m sure my case wouldn’t be included but they shouldn’t be able to lie about things or the process.
I had the opposite experience. They kept promising me I wouldn’t be arrested if I answered the questions and approved their searches, I did everything they wanted, nothing suggested any guilt, and then they arrested me anyways for 5 days before putting an ankle bracelet on me. I’m sure my case wouldn’t be included but they shouldn’t be able to lie about things or the process.
Police also use all kinds of body-language techniques, like sitting very close to you, violating your personal space and subconsciously indicating that the only way to get to the exit door is to go through them, but all you have to do is request legal council.
Are police allowed to do this in Western Europe?
Everything I read about the police in the US suggests to me that they are an array of paramilitary thugs that are supported by the courts, so not suprised they do this.
Curious if these tricks are allowed in the civilised world too?
Everything I read about the police in the US suggests to me that they are an array of paramilitary thugs that are supported by the courts, so not suprised they do this.
Curious if these tricks are allowed in the civilised world too?
In Germany, "means of deception" are listed in section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure [1] as one of "prohibited examination methods" among things like induced fatigue, hypnosis, medications or torture. I think that does count as "not allowed".
[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_st...
[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_st...
For a confession to be accepted in a court, I think that the entire interrogation should have to be filmed and viewed by a grand jury.
Separately I think that it is ridiculous that LE is allowed to lie to you but that it is a crime to lie to federal investigators- they get people on that when they can’t get them on anything else, eg Martha Stewart.
Separately I think that it is ridiculous that LE is allowed to lie to you but that it is a crime to lie to federal investigators- they get people on that when they can’t get them on anything else, eg Martha Stewart.
Then you’d be forced to watch 8-12 hours of interrogation, in some cases multiple times to cover months or years long investigations.
You can’t cut that time down across the board, it produces results. (Obviously it has drawbacks and it’s often not the right results.)
You can’t cut that time down across the board, it produces results. (Obviously it has drawbacks and it’s often not the right results.)
Yes, that is the point. Juries are our justice system’s protection against abuse. If the crime was bad enough for police to sweat someone for 12 hours, then having a jury watch for 12 hours seems a reasonable check and balance - after all they might be saving weeks that would be spent on a trial if there were no confession.
And it puts sunshine all over police interrogation practices- if they are acting professionally then that will show through, but if they are abusing someone that will become visible as well.
And it puts sunshine all over police interrogation practices- if they are acting professionally then that will show through, but if they are abusing someone that will become visible as well.
At that point you’ll end up with people doing the equivalent of filibustering. Gibberish for weeks on end.
Have you seen how long criminal trials go? Watching interrogations would be a drop in the bucket compared in comparison.
While you were in the basement cell the world ended. Everything wiped out with neutron bombs. So that means the government, the laws, the legal system, all that stuff. Doesn't exist anymore.
So whether you're guilty or not doesn't even matter. But just out of curiosity, did you do it?
So whether you're guilty or not doesn't even matter. But just out of curiosity, did you do it?
I'm afraid that in this country that the desire to convict and see justice/retribution served on perpetrators is much stronger than the fear of convicting and even executing innocent people. And I think police deception is a strong cause of false convictions.
I think there's a clear bright difference between the police lying to a suspect about her rights, versus lying about what the police do or don't already know. The former is Kafkaesque; the latter is merely Dostoevskyan. What is absurd is that anyone would fall for any of this in modern America. Every parent should teach their children that in any contentious interaction with police, the only words they should ever say are "I want a lawyer".
It's really silly that people refuse to believe the suspect when he says he "didn't do it" but immediately trust the same person when he says "I did it". It's a bit reminiscent of witch trials where there's only one possible outcome and the person is tortured until it's achieved because it's the easy path for the accusers.
A police officer who lies should go to jail for the maximum amount of time of the sentence they claim their prisoner committed.
The only way these abuses of power end is if we hold these thugs accountable.
The only way these abuses of power end is if we hold these thugs accountable.
It's obvious to everyone that on sufficiently long time scales, there aren't going to be peculiar divisions of society who are solely responsible for enforcing laws, and who are given special powers and weapons to do that, right?
Sometimes - when there are tens of millions of people in the street - it starts to feel like it's within our lifetime. But even if it's not, we all recognize that, in like 10,000 years, there's no chance that society will remain sufficiently centralized that such a thing can persist... yeah?
So, can we just frontload this stuff right now? Make it simple:
* Everybody has the exact same responsibility to enforce the law, and the same (if any) protections attached to that responsibility * Everybody has the exact same rights to own and possess weapons
Then, sure, if the states still wants to pay some people to professionally engage with this responsibility, that's fine. But there's no reason on earth that they need to continue to be a special class of people with special rights. That part can end _today_ and literally nobody will suffer.
Sometimes - when there are tens of millions of people in the street - it starts to feel like it's within our lifetime. But even if it's not, we all recognize that, in like 10,000 years, there's no chance that society will remain sufficiently centralized that such a thing can persist... yeah?
So, can we just frontload this stuff right now? Make it simple:
* Everybody has the exact same responsibility to enforce the law, and the same (if any) protections attached to that responsibility * Everybody has the exact same rights to own and possess weapons
Then, sure, if the states still wants to pay some people to professionally engage with this responsibility, that's fine. But there's no reason on earth that they need to continue to be a special class of people with special rights. That part can end _today_ and literally nobody will suffer.
> It's obvious
> we all recognize that
It isn't obvious to me; I don't recognize that.
Not nearly everyone can properly conduct an investigation. And if a loner, without family or close friends, is murdered, noone will even attempt investigating. If there's a feared gang in your town commiting crimes, everyone would be too afraid to try to convict them. We would quickly get crime-run cities and local warlords.
We need professionals who can properly investigate and who are willing to risk going up against a group of dangerous criminals.
The police is necessary.
> we all recognize that
It isn't obvious to me; I don't recognize that.
Not nearly everyone can properly conduct an investigation. And if a loner, without family or close friends, is murdered, noone will even attempt investigating. If there's a feared gang in your town commiting crimes, everyone would be too afraid to try to convict them. We would quickly get crime-run cities and local warlords.
We need professionals who can properly investigate and who are willing to risk going up against a group of dangerous criminals.
The police is necessary.
I'm not sure I understand your argument: you're saying that, in order to conduct an investigation, we need to have a special class of society that has different powers, and different access to weaponry?
Investigations have been happening for thousands of years in the western common-law tradition via constabularies and courts. These have been in the hands of police for only the past 200 or so.
So, just so I understand: you think that the police experiment is still going to be going on in 10,000 years?
Investigations have been happening for thousands of years in the western common-law tradition via constabularies and courts. These have been in the hands of police for only the past 200 or so.
So, just so I understand: you think that the police experiment is still going to be going on in 10,000 years?
> Investigations have been happening for thousands of years in the western common-law tradition via constabularies and courts.
English is not my first language; is a constabulary not a police?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I consider any armed unit that works for the government and is paid to enforce law by arresting people (and other things), to be "police".
Such units have existed for much longer than 200 years. But perhaps you use a different definition for the term?
Anyway, my point is that if there is a building with 10 armed gang members, no normal person would go in there to arrest them. That'd be suicide.
You need some organized group with special training (and ideally superior weapons) to do anything about this gang.
And that group is the police.
If you were relying on random individuals voluntarily (and without pay) doing the enforcement, a gang would only need to be sufficiently feared, so that noone ever dares touch them.
You'd have gangs killing people as brutally as possible, to make others afraid to go against them.
You can see this exact thing happening in some countries today, and it's horrible.
Yes, I do think the police "experiment" will continue.
(For the next 10000 years? Probably not. I don't think real AGI will happen in our lifetime, but I do think it will hapen within the next 10000 years. And it will change society in ways I cannot predict.)
English is not my first language; is a constabulary not a police?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I consider any armed unit that works for the government and is paid to enforce law by arresting people (and other things), to be "police".
Such units have existed for much longer than 200 years. But perhaps you use a different definition for the term?
Anyway, my point is that if there is a building with 10 armed gang members, no normal person would go in there to arrest them. That'd be suicide.
You need some organized group with special training (and ideally superior weapons) to do anything about this gang.
And that group is the police.
If you were relying on random individuals voluntarily (and without pay) doing the enforcement, a gang would only need to be sufficiently feared, so that noone ever dares touch them.
You'd have gangs killing people as brutally as possible, to make others afraid to go against them.
You can see this exact thing happening in some countries today, and it's horrible.
Yes, I do think the police "experiment" will continue.
(For the next 10000 years? Probably not. I don't think real AGI will happen in our lifetime, but I do think it will hapen within the next 10000 years. And it will change society in ways I cannot predict.)
> English is not my first language; is a constabulary not a police?
Totally understandable - English _is_ my first language, and the terminology is a clusterfuck to the point where nobody can clearly talk about it (which at times has seemed intentional, with terminology used in legislation on this topic, etc).
But I think when most people describe the different modalities of law enforcement, in terms of western common-law they mean:
* Watch is unranked, unarmed, discretionary, no special arrest power, volunteer, reporting to a public house or meeting of some kind
* Constabulary is unranked, sometimes armed, non-discretionary, no special arrest power, professional, reporting to the executive branch
* Police are ranked, discretionary, professional, armed, have special arrest power, reporting to the executive <=- in the USA, these began as, and were for a time called, "slave patrols"
* Sheriff are unranked, non-discretionary, professional, armed, have special arrest power (but relating only to court matters such as arresting a fugitive), directly elected but reporting to the judiciary
(when I saw "unarmed", I include what is sometimes called "privately armed", meaning that participants may carry privately-owned arms)
These terms have became all muddled, though. Particularly, police and sheriff have become nearly indistinguishable in terms of the function in US society.
> If you were relying on random individuals voluntarily (and without pay) doing the enforcement, a gang would only need to be sufficiently feared, so that noone ever dares touch them.
It seems to me that every place in the world where this configuration exists, there _are_ police. And the police are either paid off, or they are themselves the gang that is universally feared.
And again, it's possible to have a constabulary that is paid, but which does not have special powers (ie, can only arrest people using ordinary citizens arrests) and which is privately armed.
> Such units have existed for much longer than 200 years. But perhaps you use a different definition for the term?
For the vast majority of documented history of common-law, law enforcement in the general civilian public has been the purview of private groups and not the state.
Police, as they are today, meaning:
* Ranked and compelled to follow orders from superior officers * Armed by the state * Paid by the state * Given lawful authority to make arrests in situations where other citizens aren't * Given protections or exemptions from criminal and/or civil laws for activities during the course of their duties * Staffed by civilians (eg, not subject to a code of military justice or to judgment by a court marshal)
...is not a long-standing institution in the western-common law tradition. Nor is the use of the word "politic" or "police" to describe such a force. The earliest police forces in the US today were slave patrols, which adopted different terminology after the 13th amendment, but whose mission and powers remained fairly consistent (be reminded that slavery did not end with the 13th amendment, as it was - and is - still a legal criminal sentence).
Many places in the world still don't have forces that meet all of these criteria, even though they may borrow the word "police".
Totally understandable - English _is_ my first language, and the terminology is a clusterfuck to the point where nobody can clearly talk about it (which at times has seemed intentional, with terminology used in legislation on this topic, etc).
But I think when most people describe the different modalities of law enforcement, in terms of western common-law they mean:
* Watch is unranked, unarmed, discretionary, no special arrest power, volunteer, reporting to a public house or meeting of some kind
* Constabulary is unranked, sometimes armed, non-discretionary, no special arrest power, professional, reporting to the executive branch
* Police are ranked, discretionary, professional, armed, have special arrest power, reporting to the executive <=- in the USA, these began as, and were for a time called, "slave patrols"
* Sheriff are unranked, non-discretionary, professional, armed, have special arrest power (but relating only to court matters such as arresting a fugitive), directly elected but reporting to the judiciary
(when I saw "unarmed", I include what is sometimes called "privately armed", meaning that participants may carry privately-owned arms)
These terms have became all muddled, though. Particularly, police and sheriff have become nearly indistinguishable in terms of the function in US society.
> If you were relying on random individuals voluntarily (and without pay) doing the enforcement, a gang would only need to be sufficiently feared, so that noone ever dares touch them.
It seems to me that every place in the world where this configuration exists, there _are_ police. And the police are either paid off, or they are themselves the gang that is universally feared.
And again, it's possible to have a constabulary that is paid, but which does not have special powers (ie, can only arrest people using ordinary citizens arrests) and which is privately armed.
> Such units have existed for much longer than 200 years. But perhaps you use a different definition for the term?
For the vast majority of documented history of common-law, law enforcement in the general civilian public has been the purview of private groups and not the state.
Police, as they are today, meaning:
* Ranked and compelled to follow orders from superior officers * Armed by the state * Paid by the state * Given lawful authority to make arrests in situations where other citizens aren't * Given protections or exemptions from criminal and/or civil laws for activities during the course of their duties * Staffed by civilians (eg, not subject to a code of military justice or to judgment by a court marshal)
...is not a long-standing institution in the western-common law tradition. Nor is the use of the word "politic" or "police" to describe such a force. The earliest police forces in the US today were slave patrols, which adopted different terminology after the 13th amendment, but whose mission and powers remained fairly consistent (be reminded that slavery did not end with the 13th amendment, as it was - and is - still a legal criminal sentence).
Many places in the world still don't have forces that meet all of these criteria, even though they may borrow the word "police".
While we're at it, I think it should be illegal for prosecutors -- or defense attorneys -- to lie or use hypotheticals they know are not true just to spread doubt. Law should be argued on facts, conviction and conjecture.
Example: if I was caught drunk driving and blew a 0.15, my lawyer shouldn't be able to say "How do you know my client didn't just use mouthwash? Mouthwash has a level of alcohol in it." If they know that's not what happened, it shouldn't be legal to plant in the mind of a jury or judge. Rather they could say factually, "How accurate are these breath tests?" or "Are you sure you administered the test correctly?" to the officer being witnessed.
Example: if I was caught drunk driving and blew a 0.15, my lawyer shouldn't be able to say "How do you know my client didn't just use mouthwash? Mouthwash has a level of alcohol in it." If they know that's not what happened, it shouldn't be legal to plant in the mind of a jury or judge. Rather they could say factually, "How accurate are these breath tests?" or "Are you sure you administered the test correctly?" to the officer being witnessed.
Attorneys (including defense attorneys), as officers of the court, are ethically barred from lying to the court or bringing witnesses whom they know intend to lie. Defense attorneys will sometimes tell their clients "if you're guilty, don't tell me" in order to avoid such ethical restrictions.
Of course, not all lawyers live up to their ethical obligations and if the only evidence of an ethical lapse is protected by attorney-client privilege, it's unlikely that they would ever get caught.
Of course, not all lawyers live up to their ethical obligations and if the only evidence of an ethical lapse is protected by attorney-client privilege, it's unlikely that they would ever get caught.
I disagree with your example. That's a perfectly reasonable question that a good witness can have a perfectly valid answer to: "I know your client didn't use mouthwash because we tested this process and proved that mouthwash is only capable of getting up to a 0.05 (or whatever number)".
If the officer doesn't have a good answer to the question, then there exists reasonable doubt, whether or not the defense attorney knows that their client was, in fact, drunk.
If the officer doesn't have a good answer to the question, then there exists reasonable doubt, whether or not the defense attorney knows that their client was, in fact, drunk.
I think the point frellus made was that you shouldn’t be allowed to create reasonable doubt by bringing up something you know is not true/relevant. If the lawyer know no mouthwash was involved, it shouldn’t be allowed to use the ambiguity created by mouthwash to discredit the measurement. At least that’s how I understood it.
I agree that's what they meant, but why not?
The standard of proof isn't "beyond the doubt of my own lawyer", the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The entire job of a defense attorney is to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's evidence. If there's a reasonable explanation for the prosecution's evidence that doesn't involve the defendant being guilty, that's a reasonable doubt. Whether the defense attorney knows the doubt isn't true in this case is irrelevant to the question of whether it's a reasonable doubt.
Our system is designed to try to avoid putting innocent people in jail even if that means failing to convict some guilty people. It's already imperfect at that goal. We already convict the innocent. OP's proposal would tie defense attorneys' hands in ways that would lead to even more innocent people in prison.
The standard of proof isn't "beyond the doubt of my own lawyer", the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The entire job of a defense attorney is to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's evidence. If there's a reasonable explanation for the prosecution's evidence that doesn't involve the defendant being guilty, that's a reasonable doubt. Whether the defense attorney knows the doubt isn't true in this case is irrelevant to the question of whether it's a reasonable doubt.
Our system is designed to try to avoid putting innocent people in jail even if that means failing to convict some guilty people. It's already imperfect at that goal. We already convict the innocent. OP's proposal would tie defense attorneys' hands in ways that would lead to even more innocent people in prison.
But the defense can spend literally weeks bringing up random stuff that is irrelevant to the case that will cast doubt.
See the OJ criminal vs civil trial.
In the criminal trial the lawyers spent days bringing up every time the LA lab mishandled evidence. The LA police lab didn't handle the evidence in the OJ case. In the civil trial they weren't allowed to bring any of that up.
See the OJ criminal vs civil trial.
In the criminal trial the lawyers spent days bringing up every time the LA lab mishandled evidence. The LA police lab didn't handle the evidence in the OJ case. In the civil trial they weren't allowed to bring any of that up.
I feel mixed about it overall, but one place I don't think there's any question its sketchy as hell is when interviewing kids, especially younger ones.
If you draw the line at kids, then you'd better also draw it at any adult who may think like a kid in some relevant way. And there are a lot of them. Often these doubtful confessions are from intellectually impaired people, but there are all kinds of emotional and mental health problems that can cause people to not properly stand up for themselves.
Deception in the US must be seen in the context of excessive punishments, great latitude for making deals and strong incentives to get convictions.
We could do a VR simulation. Fake the prisoner's acquittal, release, tearful reuniting with family, later life, retirement, deathbed. And then, on his deathbed, he confesses. Aha!
[deleted]
It should surely be OK if they use deception to get you to reveal information that only the perpetrator could know. Like "We know you buried the body in that forest [lie], so tell us which tree it's under." And you tell them which tree, and they find the body there. Unless there's some weird circumstances, that proves you knew where the body was buried and should be valid evidence contributing to the conclusion that you murdered them or were at least an accomplice.
Seems like just applying honest common sense and intelligent reasoning solves this, and I thought that was the judge's job. Maybe judges are the problem for not seeing through the bullshit.
Seems like just applying honest common sense and intelligent reasoning solves this, and I thought that was the judge's job. Maybe judges are the problem for not seeing through the bullshit.
You don't have to talk to them. When you stop there is usually no way to proceed unless they have evidence. I would never agree to an interrogation for anything or any reason. You never know if they are going to consider you a suspect. Just flat out refuse. If you want to help the cops out with what you know, get a lawyer first.
I think deception is fine if it's about what evidence they have. What isn't fine is deception about the the law and physical threats. It's one thing to say you have someone's prints at a crime scene hoping they confess, it's entirely different to threaten to kill their dog or say you aren't allowed to talk to a lawyer. The basis of our adversarial legal system is that the truth will emerge from a fair fight between the sides. Deception on the facts, but not the law or threats, seems to be balanced. There are other areas of the law that are not, but this one seems to check out.
Some potential tips are to stay calm while asserting your rights and ask for a lawyer. Record anything you can, even leaving an open 911 call if you feel your safety is in jeopardy. Ask for a supervisor. If you're being forced and physically threatened to comply with something like an unlawful search, say you only consent under protest (recording needed).
Some potential tips are to stay calm while asserting your rights and ask for a lawyer. Record anything you can, even leaving an open 911 call if you feel your safety is in jeopardy. Ask for a supervisor. If you're being forced and physically threatened to comply with something like an unlawful search, say you only consent under protest (recording needed).
I also think deception in the form of "just admit you murdered the person and you can go home" should be illegal.
Police aren't empowered to make plea deals and they shouldn't imply or outright say that they can.
Police aren't empowered to make plea deals and they shouldn't imply or outright say that they can.
Well yeah, that falls under deception of the law - they don't have the legal power to make deals.
> Record anything you can
Ironically, I would record phonecalls and it saved my butt when dealing with a scammy company.
You could do it on an old android phones but now neither Android nor iPhones allow this.
Ironically, I would record phonecalls and it saved my butt when dealing with a scammy company.
You could do it on an old android phones but now neither Android nor iPhones allow this.
Phone calls are often covered differently under wiretapping. Then there are concerns about which states the parties are in and the consent laws.
Recording police during official interactions with yourself has generally been upheld.
Recording police during official interactions with yourself has generally been upheld.
Yeah, I usually bring up recording software on my computer for this sort of thing and just do the call on speakerphone. It's annoying how the major manufacturers all caved to things like this, just in case you _might_ be breaking the law.
IANAL, but I think in CA, despite being 2-party consent, when the other party tells you they're recording the call you're allowed to also record without additional consent, but I do make sure to ask anyway, and everybody is always fine with it.
IANAL, but I think in CA, despite being 2-party consent, when the other party tells you they're recording the call you're allowed to also record without additional consent, but I do make sure to ask anyway, and everybody is always fine with it.
https://abc11.com/post/city-fontana-reaches-900k-settlement-...