Bill prohibiting police from lying to children passes Virginia Senate(courthousenews.com)
courthousenews.com
Bill prohibiting police from lying to children passes Virginia Senate
https://www.courthousenews.com/bill-prohibiting-police-from-lying-to-children-passes-virginia-senate/
126 comments
another example to reinforce: ICE commonly self-issues "administrative warrants" for agents to present at a raid. these are not the same as judicial warrants, have not been reviewed by a judge, and do not have any legal power. but none of that is obvious to the person looking at a document that says "warrant" at the top.
annotated example: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/i-200_and...
annotated example: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/i-200_and...
These shortcuts, combined with the speed and scale with which ICE is trying to work has real risks. What if a US citizen happens to be in an area (e.g., walking through a restaurant kitchen to the bathroom) when a raid starts there? If there is not sufficient due process, there is a real risk of citizens being deported. How far are we from having to carry papers and need to present them on demand if we don't want to be deported accidentally? This is not a hypothetical concern:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-487
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-487
jandrese(6)
No amendment would pass with the possible exception of the 3rd (which already has the exact kind of wartime carve out the other amendments would receive), the modern discourse has very little respect for rights and liberties with a handful of highly politicized exceptions.
Right now no amendment can pass at all. You can look at when amendments pass, and most of the time they come in bunches, when either the parties are unusually close together or one party or the other is unusually powerful. Right now- with a nation balanced almost exactly 50-50 and very far apart- nothing like that can possibly pass.
We know for a fact that high ranked government officials have lied on FISA warrants.
The fact that there hasn't been any accountability for them, and that Congress is so resistant to changing the program, and the courts failing to uphold the Constitution, is a real tragedy.
The fact that there hasn't been any accountability for them, and that Congress is so resistant to changing the program, and the courts failing to uphold the Constitution, is a real tragedy.
US survey 2021
Earth is flat, not round
10% agree 9% unsure 80% disagree
With statistics like this, no state of affairs will surprise me. Perhaps needless to say, there's no reason to think whole 80% is reasonable; you'd expect a smooth gradient going across the 19%/80%, not through the 1% (which is lost in rounding I guess) but perhaps through most of the society, with only a small fraction of it being truly reasonable.
The educational system succeeded in teaching writing and reading, and not with much more, not when it comes to masses.
Earth is flat, not round
10% agree 9% unsure 80% disagree
With statistics like this, no state of affairs will surprise me. Perhaps needless to say, there's no reason to think whole 80% is reasonable; you'd expect a smooth gradient going across the 19%/80%, not through the 1% (which is lost in rounding I guess) but perhaps through most of the society, with only a small fraction of it being truly reasonable.
The educational system succeeded in teaching writing and reading, and not with much more, not when it comes to masses.
That doesn't seem too bad to me. It isn't trivial to prove the earth is flat. 10th percentile IQ seems to be around the functional illiteracy threshold. The military won't take them because as much as they have tried they can't seem to get that 10th percentile trained in just about anything. If such a person looks out into the distance, sees that things look flat and not like a sphere, and then watches some video with half-baked reasoning telling them they are right then I'm not sure how you could realistically convince them otherwise.
The assumption that everyone has equal capabilities can cause a lot of needless struggle and suffering. Similarly assumptions that an individual can't or won't grow or learn or improve can also lead to a lot of unnecessary struggle and suffering.
Both things: that everyone's capabilities (and limits) are different and individuals can increase their capabilities can be and are true.
So I can understand someone's concern that we have flat earthers, as well as your lack of concern.
Both things: that everyone's capabilities (and limits) are different and individuals can increase their capabilities can be and are true.
So I can understand someone's concern that we have flat earthers, as well as your lack of concern.
It is trivial to prove the earth is round though which makes it trivial to prove the earth is not flat (which does makes it impossible to prove the earth is flat).
Travel to any large body of water. Mark a boat with lines showing how high above the water each line is. Have somebody else pilot the boat out to sea. You observe that the lines show the boat as if its sinking. They observe the lines staying at a constant height. It's because the earth is curved and the water between you is blocking sight of the lines.
Travel to any large body of water. Mark a boat with lines showing how high above the water each line is. Have somebody else pilot the boat out to sea. You observe that the lines show the boat as if its sinking. They observe the lines staying at a constant height. It's because the earth is curved and the water between you is blocking sight of the lines.
To be convinced the Earth is flat is ridiculous on so many levels. You say they watch a youtube video confirming they're right in their primitive observation. OK, what about the easy availability of videos to the contrary?
It's not enough to be stupid to be a flat-earther. You need to deny official authorities, believe in a conspiracy, and have an arrogant attitude of thinking of yourself as smarter than other despite being an idiot. So this is not a problem of some people simple being born with inefficient brains.
More importantly, you seem to ignore the 9%. To seriously consider the earth maybe is flat is already pretty damn ridiculous.
> It isn't trivial to prove the earth is flat
Of course, because it isn't. If you meant it isn't trivial to prove it isn't flat, well, in general it is hard to disprove an idea that isn't specific. But take any actual model of flat Earth, describing the movement of the Moon on quite a low altitude and it's trivial to prove it's wrong simply by looking at the Moon and always seeing the same side regardless where you live.
It's not enough to be stupid to be a flat-earther. You need to deny official authorities, believe in a conspiracy, and have an arrogant attitude of thinking of yourself as smarter than other despite being an idiot. So this is not a problem of some people simple being born with inefficient brains.
More importantly, you seem to ignore the 9%. To seriously consider the earth maybe is flat is already pretty damn ridiculous.
> It isn't trivial to prove the earth is flat
Of course, because it isn't. If you meant it isn't trivial to prove it isn't flat, well, in general it is hard to disprove an idea that isn't specific. But take any actual model of flat Earth, describing the movement of the Moon on quite a low altitude and it's trivial to prove it's wrong simply by looking at the Moon and always seeing the same side regardless where you live.
Conspiratorial thinking doesn't map with IQ, at least, not in that direction.
This was an online survey with 1134 respondents. Comparable to a medium-engagement Twitter poll. It's surprising to me that you think this is representative of the perspective of the of your country as a whole.
https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-sur...
https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-sur...
Perhaps I'm not that inteligent myself ;) Then again, I never said it's my country, I'm from Poland. I could give Polish-specific examples of extremy stupidity, but the flat earth example I find the least controversial.
this is a fun read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_(police_procedure)
> The use of this technique is essentially prohibited in some countries, including the United Kingdom[4] and the United States.[5] In Germany, which has high standards for what constitutes a voluntary confession, it may be more difficult to use confessions obtained by this technique.[5] The procedure has been used by police in Australia[6] and New Zealand,[7] and its use has been upheld by courts in both countries.
> The use of this technique is essentially prohibited in some countries, including the United Kingdom[4] and the United States.[5] In Germany, which has high standards for what constitutes a voluntary confession, it may be more difficult to use confessions obtained by this technique.[5] The procedure has been used by police in Australia[6] and New Zealand,[7] and its use has been upheld by courts in both countries.
Since we're doing the van halen "right now your government is doing things you think only happen in other countries" thing, here's one about a 15 year old who was so mentally disabled "“He was unable to even tie his shoelaces and his mother would have to do it for him", but that didn't stop him from being groomed by FBI agents to say things that count as conspiracy to commit terrorism. They recorded everything that he said without regard to the fact that he had “the mentality of a 6-year-old”, then waited until he turned 18 to arrest him so they could charge him as an adult and put him away for life.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/18-year-old-arrested-on-...
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/18-year-old-arrested-on-...
“we would be arguing”? I wouldn’t.
I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.
The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.
I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.
The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.
If this last election taught me anything, it's that people who share my beliefs about the sanctity of human rights are in a minority.
> if we were debating the 4th amendment today, it wouldn't pass
Neither would the 1st, the 2nd, maybe the 5th, the 6th is already in abeyance when the accusers are minors, and definitely not the 10th. Maybe the 3rd would be approved?
Needless to say, I heartily approve of the entire Bill of Rights.
Neither would the 1st, the 2nd, maybe the 5th, the 6th is already in abeyance when the accusers are minors, and definitely not the 10th. Maybe the 3rd would be approved?
Needless to say, I heartily approve of the entire Bill of Rights.
The 3rd would be approved because it has a carve-out, soldiers can be quartered in private homes _during wartime_ as long as a law says it's ok. That exact same type of carve-out would be added to every amendment if it was proposed today.
It's amazing how much power terrorism hands the government. I'm sure that never been capitalised on of course
Most people don’t see the point without a recent memory of abuses. Much of the Bill of Rights reads as a list of grievances against the British (the 3rd Amendment being particularly obvious) and was driven by real problems the people had experienced.
It’s a little bit like IT. When it’s working well, people think it isn’t doing anything.
It’s a little bit like IT. When it’s working well, people think it isn’t doing anything.
[deleted]
it doesn't functionally apply anyways. The courts find that so long as the illegal search found some evidence of a crime, it can be admitted to court. The police just have to promise not to do it again
we've pretty much stopped with the amendments anyway. Last few are basically politicians affecting themselves.
And yet, terrorists aren't really a problem.
This bill is focused on handling juvenile suspects, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done to improve things for juvenile witnesses and victims. In too many jurisdictions in the US, if a young child is believed to be a witness or victim of a crime, they are treated the same way as adults. Sometimes this means little children are placed in interrogation rooms with detectives. This can be traumatic to children, and can often lead to inaccurate information. Anyone who's tried to get information from a 5 year old can attest to how difficult that can be, even about mundane subjects.
The gold standard is to use child advocacy centers (CACs). Children suspected to be witnesses or victims to a crime are taken to a facility specifically for child interviews (i.e. not an interrogation room in a police station) and the interview is conducted by a trained forensic psychologist. These psychologists are specifically trained to work with children, and ask questions in a way that isn't leading and is likely to get accurate information. There is a ton of scientific literature and known protocols in this field.
The gold standard is to use child advocacy centers (CACs). Children suspected to be witnesses or victims to a crime are taken to a facility specifically for child interviews (i.e. not an interrogation room in a police station) and the interview is conducted by a trained forensic psychologist. These psychologists are specifically trained to work with children, and ask questions in a way that isn't leading and is likely to get accurate information. There is a ton of scientific literature and known protocols in this field.
How about expanding the law such that the police can't lie to ANYONE?
If people understood how the legal system worked this would largely be irrelevant.
People think police are judges or prosecutors and (falsely) trust what they say accordingly. The police are evidence collectors for the prosecution, who presents evidence to a judge. Police are the lowest men on the legal totem pole and have little power in deciding the outcome of your case.
That alone should be enough to make you never trust whatever they promise, because really they cannot promise anything.
People think police are judges or prosecutors and (falsely) trust what they say accordingly. The police are evidence collectors for the prosecution, who presents evidence to a judge. Police are the lowest men on the legal totem pole and have little power in deciding the outcome of your case.
That alone should be enough to make you never trust whatever they promise, because really they cannot promise anything.
A criminal investigation certainly requires at least lies of omission.
I think they shouldn’t be allowed to lie about the law, but anything else is needlessly handicapping them.
Lying police do more harm than good.
False confessions don’t just send innocent people to prison, they also close cases without finding the actual culprits.
Remember the police are incentivized to catch people, not catch guilty people. So the easiest way for them to game the system isn’t in society’s best interest.
False confessions don’t just send innocent people to prison, they also close cases without finding the actual culprits.
Remember the police are incentivized to catch people, not catch guilty people. So the easiest way for them to game the system isn’t in society’s best interest.
"Better for 10 criminals to go free than 1 innocent man suffer."
Yeah we abandoned that a long time ago. Now we're at the corner of "Hide behind civilians, shoot the kidnappers, the hostage and a couple innocent bystanders then suppress the report about the incident for 5 years." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Miramar_shootout) and "order the victim to approach you, shoot her, lie to the media to say that she was wearing combat fatigues and had a gun, then suppress video of the incident for two years" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Savannah_Graziano).
For better or worse we're heading into a world with cameras everywhere. We can do better than 1:10.
to be more precise, we're heading into a world where the radio signals blanketing our planet will be leveraged as a realtime omniscient surveillance field. [1][2]
i sound like a conspiracy nut every time i bring this up, but wireless-networks-as-a-sensor seems unavoidable. there simply is no way to keep improving wireless transmitters without also increasing their environmental awareness and therefore leaking data about physical spaces. even simpler networks like wifi will dynamically adapt channels, frequencies to optimize speeds and it turns out you can extrapolate a lot from that [3]. advanced networks with features like beamforming are even more responsive to their environment and therefore more leaky. we're making accidental cameras, and they can see through walls.
it seems like this is going to be a "feature" of 6G mobile networks. read up on "joint communications and sensing" to find research in this area. (it's not just nokia.)
[1] https://www.nokia.com/blog/building-a-network-with-a-sixth-s...
[2] https://www.nokia.com/about-us/newsroom/articles/nokias-visi...
[3] https://news.ucsb.edu/2023/021198/wifi-can-read-through-wall...
i sound like a conspiracy nut every time i bring this up, but wireless-networks-as-a-sensor seems unavoidable. there simply is no way to keep improving wireless transmitters without also increasing their environmental awareness and therefore leaking data about physical spaces. even simpler networks like wifi will dynamically adapt channels, frequencies to optimize speeds and it turns out you can extrapolate a lot from that [3]. advanced networks with features like beamforming are even more responsive to their environment and therefore more leaky. we're making accidental cameras, and they can see through walls.
it seems like this is going to be a "feature" of 6G mobile networks. read up on "joint communications and sensing" to find research in this area. (it's not just nokia.)
[1] https://www.nokia.com/blog/building-a-network-with-a-sixth-s...
[2] https://www.nokia.com/about-us/newsroom/articles/nokias-visi...
[3] https://news.ucsb.edu/2023/021198/wifi-can-read-through-wall...
[deleted]
why?
[deleted]
Why not?
If I were at risk of being murdered, and only a cop lying could stop it, I'd want the cop to lie. Even to kids!
Let's say you’re being held hostage by a dangerous armed criminal who has already harmed others and is threatening to kill you. The police arrive, and the criminal demands to know if there are snipers positioned outside. If the cop truthfully says “Yes,” the criminal might panic and shoot you immediately. Instead, the cop lies and says, “No, it’s just us talking, let’s work this out,” buying time for a sniper to take the criminal down and save your life.
Let's say you’re being held hostage by a dangerous armed criminal who has already harmed others and is threatening to kill you. The police arrive, and the criminal demands to know if there are snipers positioned outside. If the cop truthfully says “Yes,” the criminal might panic and shoot you immediately. Instead, the cop lies and says, “No, it’s just us talking, let’s work this out,” buying time for a sniper to take the criminal down and save your life.
That's not what anyone means when they talk about cops lying though.
Cops can lie to suspects during questioning. They can say "your friend already confessed" or "we just got a call from the lab, your DNA matches" or "you're getting the death penalty unless you confess right now". As well as bullshit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_(police_procedure) (in some jurisdictions).
I'm fine with undercover cops lying about whether or not they're wearing a wire, or your scenario. I'm not so keen on uniformed cops lying to elicit confessions.
Cops can lie to suspects during questioning. They can say "your friend already confessed" or "we just got a call from the lab, your DNA matches" or "you're getting the death penalty unless you confess right now". As well as bullshit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_(police_procedure) (in some jurisdictions).
I'm fine with undercover cops lying about whether or not they're wearing a wire, or your scenario. I'm not so keen on uniformed cops lying to elicit confessions.
It's interesting to see who immediately jumps to a hypothetical involving the police protecting them from a crime, versus those who immediately jump to a hypothetical where they're being protected from police.
This may be irrational, but I'm more worried about being falsely imprisoned by legal means than I am about being murdered by illegal means.
This may be irrational, but I'm more worried about being falsely imprisoned by legal means than I am about being murdered by illegal means.
[deleted]
>If I were at risk of being murdered,
That's called "exigent circumstances", and a lot of rights are normally thrown out the window if that's the case - police don't need a warrant if threat of bodily harm to themselves or others is on the table.
And that isn't what most lying cops do is about - most of the time it is bad for the public.
That's called "exigent circumstances", and a lot of rights are normally thrown out the window if that's the case - police don't need a warrant if threat of bodily harm to themselves or others is on the table.
And that isn't what most lying cops do is about - most of the time it is bad for the public.
So what you're saying is "If you want to make an omelette, you've gotta break some eggs"?
I'm sure we can make a framework around when they can lie. They can not lie to obtain facts or information while investigating. Doing so should poison what they gain and anything found afterwards.
> should poison what they gain and anything found afterwards.
That's a more expansive proposal than the law being discussed. The law is narrower than "investigating" and is focused only on interrogating a suspect, so presumably post-Miranda warning. And in this context being a "suspect" is a specific category elevated from being a witness or person of interest. And then the only penalty in the law is making a confession obtained as the result of a lie to a suspect during an interrogation inadmissable.
Those differences address the concerns mentioned downthread with lying in the context of undercover work.
That's a more expansive proposal than the law being discussed. The law is narrower than "investigating" and is focused only on interrogating a suspect, so presumably post-Miranda warning. And in this context being a "suspect" is a specific category elevated from being a witness or person of interest. And then the only penalty in the law is making a confession obtained as the result of a lie to a suspect during an interrogation inadmissable.
Those differences address the concerns mentioned downthread with lying in the context of undercover work.
Frankly the nickle-and-diming of when Miranda does and does not apply is itself an issue: "Oh, no, you're not under arrest, you're just being detained indefinitely," "Hahaha a dog practicing law? What an idiot, continue the interrogation," and "Your honor, the suspect failed to verbally affirm his right to remain silent; instead simply not speaking, so we were under no obligation to cease attempting to interrogate him" are all arguments that the Supreme Court has, in its infinite wisdom, seen fit to uphold as not violating Miranda.
Why?
There are lies that don‘t poison anything.
For instance police lies in an online chat to be a 12 year old girl to catch a child predator.
There are lies that don‘t poison anything.
For instance police lies in an online chat to be a 12 year old girl to catch a child predator.
That's an easy situation to deal with. Have someone who isn't an officer sit at the computer and pretend they are a 12 year old girl to catch a child predator and turn the evidence over to the non-lying police.
The same trick can than be used in an interrogation.
That’s still lying police just with extra steps.
That’s still lying police just with extra steps.
How about not actively providing false information, but being allowed to respond with wrong information?
So pretending to be a 12 year old girl to catch a child predator is illegal then?
This law is about lying during interrogation. When a police officer is wearing the uniform, asking questions, acting in their capacity as a protector of the public, I think directly lying to your face should be a crime. Their authority as an officer is the very thing they are using to get you to believe their lie. That is a critical piece.
A detective doing undercover work may require a degree of duplicity to achieve their aim, their authority as an officer is not what gets you to believe their lie, they almost always conceal that fact from you.
I think these are clearly distinct arenas of law enforcement.
A detective doing undercover work may require a degree of duplicity to achieve their aim, their authority as an officer is not what gets you to believe their lie, they almost always conceal that fact from you.
I think these are clearly distinct arenas of law enforcement.
Parents comment says to anyone that includes people outside an interrogation
Do you think that a person wearing a police uniform (that every person has an obligation to obey so long as they make a lawful order), can also, in the performance on that same duty, lie directly to a member of the public?
[deleted]
Fun fact, that is already illegal. Perverted justice was an entirely civilian organization.
reading some of the criticisms of their former behavior does highlight pretty strongly why exactly that kinda thing is problematic.
reading some of the criticisms of their former behavior does highlight pretty strongly why exactly that kinda thing is problematic.
there was a dude who the police told they had footage of him committing CSA. It was a lie but he trusted them, so he genuinely believed he was losing his mind as he never contemplated that law enforcement would lie.
They arrested, charged and sentenced him, despite the fact he never did.
>Contrary to popular belief, the United States does not require police officers to identify themselves as police in the case of a sting or other undercover work, and police officers may lie when engaged in such work. The law of entrapment instead focuses on whether people were enticed to commit crimes they would not have otherwise considered in the normal course of events.
--your source
Not as straightforward as you're implying.
--your source
Not as straightforward as you're implying.
Now tell my how pretending to be a 12 year old girl forces somebody to commit a crime?
Forcing somebody isn’t entrapment. Entrapment is providing opportunity to encourage someone to commit a crime that they might otherwise have not committed.
Then tell my how pretending to be a 12 year old girl encourages somebody to commit a crime?
Step in the right direction. Get this passed first, then later we can move to a spot where the government is _never allowed to lie_ to its citizens.
We live an in imperfect world. Some state secrets probably are for public benefit.
Government lies should be strongly regulated and see multiple layers of check and oversight. Re-review by new agents should be a frequent event. Lies should be expensive, they should have weight, and they should be only when strictly necessary for the good of the people.
As an example, 'fake' terrorists. Those who only rise to that level because someone in the government offered to sell (fake) explosives, etc. I believe that's more harm than good. However I'd also like real terrorists who would eventually figure out how to do bad things to get caught. Review, oversight, lies being expensive.
Government lies should be strongly regulated and see multiple layers of check and oversight. Re-review by new agents should be a frequent event. Lies should be expensive, they should have weight, and they should be only when strictly necessary for the good of the people.
As an example, 'fake' terrorists. Those who only rise to that level because someone in the government offered to sell (fake) explosives, etc. I believe that's more harm than good. However I'd also like real terrorists who would eventually figure out how to do bad things to get caught. Review, oversight, lies being expensive.
> Some state secrets probably are for public benefit.
You can have secrets without having lies. Observe:
"What is the top speed of an F-16 fighter jet?"
"That information is classified."
I'm not entirely convinced there's any case where lying is required.
You can have secrets without having lies. Observe:
"What is the top speed of an F-16 fighter jet?"
"That information is classified."
I'm not entirely convinced there's any case where lying is required.
The problem becomes that not everything can be feasibly boiled down to purely true or false accuracy.
If you ask me how much is in my bank account, and I tell you it was $50 last time I checked, but I knew a $2000 deposit was coming, did I lie?
If you ask me about whether UFOs are real, and I tell you I've never seen one or met someone who credibly has, but I know we have a classified "Earth-Vulcan Treaty Negotiation" committee, did I lie?
If you ask me about the existence of programs to assassinate a dozen foreign leaders, and I answer 10 of them don't exist and say the answer to 2 are classified, but I know all 12 don't exist, did I lie?
It all goes down a rabbit hole of agency, intent, provability, and expected perception of what you communicated.
If you ask me how much is in my bank account, and I tell you it was $50 last time I checked, but I knew a $2000 deposit was coming, did I lie?
If you ask me about whether UFOs are real, and I tell you I've never seen one or met someone who credibly has, but I know we have a classified "Earth-Vulcan Treaty Negotiation" committee, did I lie?
If you ask me about the existence of programs to assassinate a dozen foreign leaders, and I answer 10 of them don't exist and say the answer to 2 are classified, but I know all 12 don't exist, did I lie?
It all goes down a rabbit hole of agency, intent, provability, and expected perception of what you communicated.
"Never" seems like a bad standard
You'd have to make at most extremely limited exceptions (for example, no, a generic "national security" concern would not be a limited exception).
I'm convinced that the benefits of such a norm would far outweigh the downsides.
I'm convinced that the benefits of such a norm would far outweigh the downsides.
I'm willing to allow much, much more lying than that. Especially for national security concerns.
We've had this for a while in Illinois:
705 ILCS 405/5-401.6, "Prohibition of deceptive tactics."
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=0...
705 ILCS 405/5-401.6, "Prohibition of deceptive tactics."
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=0...
> The law would "prohibit officers from knowingly and intentionally making false statements about any material fact, including by use of inauthentic replica documents, prior to or during a custodial interrogation of a child to secure the cooperation, confession or conviction of such child."
This is specifically about lying to children to manipulate them into giving testimony/confession.
This is specifically about lying to children to manipulate them into giving testimony/confession.
The fact that something like this is even considered against adults is just plain absurd.
Law enforcement shouldn't be so adversarial at every step.
Do you dare help the police, when you never know if they consider you friend or foe.
Law enforcement shouldn't be so adversarial at every step.
Do you dare help the police, when you never know if they consider you friend or foe.
>Do you dare help the police, when you never know if they consider you friend or foe.
No, never. Give the minimum required information and try to exit the interaction as soon as possible. You are always considered foe, and likewise, should nearly always consider the police your foe.
The only exception is when you're the victim of a violent crime and need their assistance to pursue justice, but even then you have to be judicial in your interactions.
No, never. Give the minimum required information and try to exit the interaction as soon as possible. You are always considered foe, and likewise, should nearly always consider the police your foe.
The only exception is when you're the victim of a violent crime and need their assistance to pursue justice, but even then you have to be judicial in your interactions.
Most of the complexity arises from the simple fact that the job is unavoidably adversarial when it comes to criminals.
Deception is an natural strategy with upside for catching criminals. It could be banned, but there would be a non-zero cost to enforcement. The public generally wants to have it's cake and eat it tool
Deception is an natural strategy with upside for catching criminals. It could be banned, but there would be a non-zero cost to enforcement. The public generally wants to have it's cake and eat it tool
The problem is that it is literally not the police's job to decide who is or is not a criminal (which, by the constitution, can only be determined by a fair trial, until which they must be presumed innocent), only to gather evidence and catch suspects, and it is supposed to be their job to serve and protect all citizens (which, despite their attitudes, include suspects).
There is a conflict of interest. Suspects presumed innocent are best served and protected by no investigation and no evidence collection. This is a contradiction with the stated purpose of the police, therefore it goes to the people and the law to decide where to strike the balance.
I don't understand why it's specific to children. Surely lying under any circumstances should be prohibited.
Plus it's not like children are the only vulnerable group.
Still, at least this is a step in the right direction. So we should be thankful for that.
Plus it's not like children are the only vulnerable group.
Still, at least this is a step in the right direction. So we should be thankful for that.
> Surely lying under any circumstances should be prohibited
You must admit that it's a tricky issue, differentiating between a cop purposely lying vs making an incorrect assertion. Should a defendant walk if it they can prove at trial that the cop said something that wasn't true?
That said, it's sad how often people incriminate themselves with drug possession because of the "gentle" lie that things will be a lot worse for them if the cop is the one to find the drugs.
You must admit that it's a tricky issue, differentiating between a cop purposely lying vs making an incorrect assertion. Should a defendant walk if it they can prove at trial that the cop said something that wasn't true?
That said, it's sad how often people incriminate themselves with drug possession because of the "gentle" lie that things will be a lot worse for them if the cop is the one to find the drugs.
We could start with a standard of not willfully lying about facts and see how it goes. I agree that the gray areas could get tricky, but just starting with most obvious cases might provide a lot of the benefit.
I think the current status quo, where cops can lie to citizens about anything and everything with no consequence, is pretty bad. Sure it might help with some specific convictions, but the immense lack of trust and goodwill that generates in the entire public must cause a huge amount of harm and lose a number of other solvable cases.
Even though I'm not engaged in any criminal enterprises I am still wary about saying anything to police. Even though most police are decent people, mistakes happen and they are often under pressure to hit certain metrics. Indictments of innocent people are hardly rare and you never know what a cop's angle is, given their freedom to lie at will.
I think the current status quo, where cops can lie to citizens about anything and everything with no consequence, is pretty bad. Sure it might help with some specific convictions, but the immense lack of trust and goodwill that generates in the entire public must cause a huge amount of harm and lose a number of other solvable cases.
Even though I'm not engaged in any criminal enterprises I am still wary about saying anything to police. Even though most police are decent people, mistakes happen and they are often under pressure to hit certain metrics. Indictments of innocent people are hardly rare and you never know what a cop's angle is, given their freedom to lie at will.
Yeah. It's really not very difficult to have a situation where (i) the bar for "the police officer made an inaccurate statement during the interview" being a reason to consider a "not guilty" verdict is really, really high and (ii) making misstatements in interviews is regarded as a blot on the professional record of the policeman involved and making intentional misstatements a serious misconduct offence
Plenty of other countries manage it.
Plenty of other countries manage it.
I don't think it is a tricky issue. Lots of other countries have "no lies during interrogations" laws and manage just fine.
If a police officer makes an honest mistake then that's fine. But if a police officer is repeatedly stating things during interrogations that they've misunderstood then they're grossly incompetent for whole different reasons than lack of honest character. Just like if a developer kept pushing broken code without any unit tests, you'd have a quiet word with them that they need to put more due diligence into their work.
If a police officer makes an honest mistake then that's fine. But if a police officer is repeatedly stating things during interrogations that they've misunderstood then they're grossly incompetent for whole different reasons than lack of honest character. Just like if a developer kept pushing broken code without any unit tests, you'd have a quiet word with them that they need to put more due diligence into their work.
The problem is that it leads to a classic game theory situation - where if you, an informed citizen, know that cops are allowed to lie to you, that the logical conclusion is to never believe a cop under any circumstance.
It is deeply hostile and likely counter productive to the stated goals of police departments.
There is no way for normal people to distinguish a lawful order given by a police officer from a lie.
It is deeply hostile and likely counter productive to the stated goals of police departments.
There is no way for normal people to distinguish a lawful order given by a police officer from a lie.
> Should a defendant walk if it they can prove at trial that the cop said something that wasn't true?
Should a defendant be found guilty if they were lied to by the cops? Explicit lied that are used to extract and manipulate confessions.
Remember, people are innocent until proven guilty. We don’t presume someone on trial is guilty. If they weren’t properly prosecuted, we shouldn’t assume the guilt is proper either.
Should a defendant be found guilty if they were lied to by the cops? Explicit lied that are used to extract and manipulate confessions.
Remember, people are innocent until proven guilty. We don’t presume someone on trial is guilty. If they weren’t properly prosecuted, we shouldn’t assume the guilt is proper either.
> Should a defendant walk if it they can prove at trial that the cop said something that wasn't true?
Absolutely yes. These lies cause real harm, and the cops need to face consequences or they have no reason to abstain.
A friend of some of my friends would be alive today if a cop had not lied to him about the consequences of a minor fender-bender, claiming he'd put someone in the hospital with critical injuries and it was uncertain they'd survive. (The cop was caught on tape telling his partner, "it's a lie, but it's fun"; nobody was actually hurt, at all.) Overwhelmed with remorse, feeling the world would be better off without him, he killed himself.
The cop got a week's unpaid vacation for this.
Absolutely yes. These lies cause real harm, and the cops need to face consequences or they have no reason to abstain.
A friend of some of my friends would be alive today if a cop had not lied to him about the consequences of a minor fender-bender, claiming he'd put someone in the hospital with critical injuries and it was uncertain they'd survive. (The cop was caught on tape telling his partner, "it's a lie, but it's fun"; nobody was actually hurt, at all.) Overwhelmed with remorse, feeling the world would be better off without him, he killed himself.
The cop got a week's unpaid vacation for this.
This isn't about white lies. This is about purposeful, blatantly false things to manipulate witnesses/suspects into giving confessions. Often false confessions - the article lists as one of the law's justifications that in the cases they looked at, 34% of minors reported giving a false confession (50% for under 14), but the adult rate is 8%, which is still appallingly high - if any other profession had a "vital tool" that ruins incorrectly someone's life 1 in 12 times, there would be major outcry and regulation.
Every time I see this pop up it reminds me of this part of an epsiode of This American Life [0]. At parts its quite difficult to listen to, however it seems like an important thing to be aware of. If they're willing to do this to children, what are they fine with doing to adults? It's beyond words how someone can imagine that this is moral behavior in the pursuit of justice. I don't see how anyone can harass a child like that - already distraught by the death of his sister - and to treat some kid like a murderer for hours on end.
[0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/210/perfect-evidence/act-tw...
[0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/210/perfect-evidence/act-tw...
Relevant context. It is not always legal for the police to lie, and they often do anyway. Be aware of your rights.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/what-happens-when-police-lie
https://www.blasslaw.com/faqs/when-can-the-police-lie-to-you...
But also remember that you don't have any rights if you're poor, because you won't be able to leverage them and trying could get you in a deeper hole.
I get what you're tying to say, but this kind of phrasing does more damage by instilling a (mostly) false sense of learned helplessness.
No, it instills a reality about so-called "rights". Liberal society is full of lies like this and I'm just pointing them
out.
And if the year were 1850, you'd be writing about the 'reality' of needing to accept slavery.
You're not dropping any truth bombs, you're just rationalising cowardice in the face of injustice.
You're not dropping any truth bombs, you're just rationalising cowardice in the face of injustice.
Still needs to be signed by the governor. Given the voting along partisan lines I don't expect it to pass.
I think it's a matter of which politicians are owned by which interests and pandering to said interests more than political lines. Once you get past the insane screeching reforming the police is popular with the general public on both sides of the isle.
I guess no more Operation Flagship (well maybe since this is just lying to kids). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flagship
[deleted]
Let's forbid the police from lying to everybody.
Police shouldn’t be allowed to lie in general
luxuryballs(5)
…
[deleted]
if the cops cant question kids at all, then what would they do if a group of kids are acting suspicious?
Nothing. "Acting suspicious" isn't a crime, it's a pretext. Usually to shooting some unarmed black kid in the head.
"Acting suspicious" is a grammar crime.
They were acting as if they were suspicious of me! Why would anyone be suspicious of the police!? I had to shoot them!
An agent of the government can lie to your face, create fake documents to support that lie, and threaten you with prison to confess under the duress caused by this lie and we think this maybe shouldn't be ok, barely, but only for kids.
This is an insane world we live in that this is debated topic.