9 ms·

I'm guessing mental abuse of being accused and repetitively in a room for hours. The constant demand upon a person to confess with no end in sight for the perso

by sysbin 7y ago

I'm guessing mental abuse of being accused and repetitively in a room for hours. The constant demand upon a person to confess with no end in sight for the person. The experience being unique by the variables of the alleged crime and with whoever is hired to question play into the equation. I think the best situation for an accused person is refusing to talk and until an attorney tells them what to say. Since, mentally I doubt my health (at my best state) could even take anything else in a situation of such importance.

Ntrails 7y ago
> I think the best situation for an accused person is refusing to talk [to the police] Simple advice, and easy to follow. Even if you are innocent, understand the police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you. Do Not Help Them.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  In some cases not speaking to the Police can damage your defence later, though.
  - DenisM 7y ago
    Such as?
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      Such as if you had an alibi that you try to use as a defence in court but you didn't mention it when questioned by Police in the first place. This can cast doubt on the alibi - presumably because people will think you made it up later and if it was true you should have been able to say so in the first place. > it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights
      - the_snooze 7y ago
        I think what everyone is getting at is that you should refuse any questioning at all, full stop.
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        Yes I know - but the problem with that is that when you get to court and try to defend yourself, your defence will be weaker because you didn't answer questions at the time. It's bad advice.
        the_snooze 7y ago
        No, your defense will be weaker if you talk because the prosecution will use your words against you. They're not going to give you virtue points for being kind to them and not bothering them with things like asserting your right to an attorney. That's not their job. That's exactly what defense attorneys and police themselves advise. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-poli...
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        Well the law in some jurisdictions says explicitly > it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court As in the jury are allowed to take into account the fact that you did not reveal information at the first opportunity as a negative.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        erispoe 7y ago
        That's something that your solicitor would know and advise on. There is still no reason to talk to the police without an attorney/solicitor present.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dkastro92 7y ago
    With today's technology I don't think you need to talk without a lawyer to better case your alibi. You have to remember that it is legal (USA) for the police to lie to you but not the other way around.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    Every defense attorney I've talked to says they've had a hundreds of cases where they wished their client hadn't talked to the cops. And they've never mentioned one where they wished their client had talked to the cops. Oh Chris you're from the UK. I think most people on this thread are assuming you're talking about the u.s. where you should absolutely not talk to the cops until a lawyer is present. It must work differently in the UK where either the cops and prosecutors are less aggressively trying to convict you no matter your innocence or guilt. Or not speaking to the cops is held against you far more.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      If you had a really rock-solid alibi - something that meant there was not even a remote possibility that you were the offender, would you still not bring it up at all to the Police? You'd go all the way to court, months later, and only then bring it up?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - TACIXAT 7y ago
        What if the police aren't questioning you about what they say? Your alibi can place you where they want to place you.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - DanBC 7y ago
        In the US: you don't ever talk to the police for any reason unless you have a lawyer with you telling you what to say. You're completely right about the UK though. If you didn't do it and police are asking if you did it it's normally much easier to just tell them that you didn't do it, and this has very little risk. The risk comes from people who have committed the offence, but who think that it's a minor issue and think that just explaining it to police will mean they can go. If the police stop you and you have a self-defence baseball bat in the boot of your car then you need to say "it's for playing baseball with the kids". As soon as you say "it's for self-defence, just to scare people off, I'd never hit anyone with it" that converts it into an offence and police are a bit touchy about weapons at the moment.
- S_A_P 7y ago
  IANAL, but in the USA, even if the charge is jaywalking and you are arrested ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY. DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS without an attorney present. They may try and delay you from retaining an attorney, but when asked a question the only response should be "I want an attorney". Anecdotally, I am someone who is prone to feeling claustrophobic when I'm in an enclosed space or feeling pressured by people. I could see how 8-12 hours of intense questioning and not knowing my rights could easily turn into "I will say whatever you want, just get me out of this space."
  - bscphil 7y ago
    >IANAL, but in the USA, even if the charge is jaywalking and you are arrested ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY. DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS without an attorney present. They may try and delay you from retaining an attorney, but when asked a question the only response should be "I want an attorney". I want to know (from anyone who is well-informed) how exactly this works out for the poor and middle class. In the movies they say "I want to speak to my attorney", but 90% of the population don't have a "my attorney", so if you just demand an attorney, what happens next? Do they hand you a phone book, and you have to thumb through to the lawyer section of the yellow pages? If you just demand (generic) "an attorney", do they have one on staff they can give you, or fetch one from a nearby court? What's the process like? Do you have a right to a free attorney when you're making a statement to the police, or only in court? And is it legal for a police officer to pretend to be an attorney? (Seen this in several movies.) Is stuff you say to an officer pretending to be an attorney admissible in court? Basically, the problem gets more complicated for anyone who doesn't retain an attorney, and much more complicated for anyone who can't afford one. How does it work exactly?
    - dyu 7y ago
      I am not well-informed, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning : >If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
      - xur17 7y ago
- est31 7y ago
  Obligatory lecture on this topic (must watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
  - jneplokh 7y ago
    I recommend this lecture to everyone I know. Absolutely crucial to watch it and be aware.
  - itronitron 7y ago
    an important point in that video is that if you say anything, and someone else (for exampe a police officer) says something else, then it becomes your word against the police officer's in court
- moosey 7y ago
  Eye witness testimony is crap too. Even if you could answer pointed questions about your whereabouts in any given evening using Google maps, human recollection of events and their details is not great. There are questions I am capable of answering with the police but I must accept that most questions I answer could be wrong, or another witness could be wrong and now the police can use my evidence to accuse me off being a liar... Which happens to innocent people in the US because our prison system isn't about Justice, it's about maximizing the slave count in the private prison system.
  - megous 7y ago
    Can there really be consequences for contradicting the other witness, without other indications pointing to who's right? Contradictory witness statements have to be really common.
    - maxheadroom 7y ago
      >Can there really be consequences for contradicting the other witness, without other indications pointing to who's right? Yes. The end-goal is to infer that the suspect is being deceptive and/or lying and that, in turn, would make any statements that give the suspect any "good light" weighted less credible to their own defence. "You said you didn't shoot the suspect but you also said you wore an off-blue shirt. 'X' said the shirt they say you in was solid blue. Why would you lie about the colour of your shirt!? And, since you're lying about that, how do we know you're not lying about shooting the victim?"
    - moosey 7y ago
      Yes. It's typically then used to attack "your credibility".
  - winfred 7y ago
    Private prisons only amount to 8.4% of the prison system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
    - 7y ago
- DanBC 7y ago
  > police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you ...in the US. If you're in England and you didn't do it then it's normally a good idea to clear things up. You can have a solicitor with you. Of course, if you've been arrested then you should make use of the solicitor and follow their advice - which will usually be "explain what happened and where you were at the time", unless you did in fact do it where their advice might be "explain in these terms what happened", or "just say 'no comment' to every question".
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Police in the UK have the same goals as police in the US, it's just that American police are often more aggressive about it. American lawyers will often give that same advice, tell your story to clear things up so that you can go home. It's still generally smarter to wait until you have the advice from the lawyer before you start yapping though.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      They do retain their principles of policing by consent. They are a citizen in uniform rather than a force in opposition to the citizens. It does generally change the attitude in nearly all dealings. UK police can't lie to suspects in interview or bring out some false evidence to encourage you to confess, and interviews have to be fully recorded. Yes, of course there have been some that break the rules.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Not great advice. I personally would ask for a solicitor. He or she will advise appropriately.
  - hackermailman 7y ago
    The lawyer will stop you from going over the top with your defense though, clarifying all statements such as changing the panicked reaction to a serious accusation:"I've never even been to that city!" with "I haven't been to that city recently" which is a huge difference should the police later discover a tiny piece of evidence like a social media posting or receipt showing you did indeed go to that city once upon a time 10+ years ago. If you don't clarify then they can say you are a liar and made a provably false statement to the police during court.
- DenisM 7y ago
  There is nuance to that - simply remaining silent is not the same thing as asserting silence, and is not as effective. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    Wow, how messed up is that? "You have a right to remain silent" can't be interpreted in the most direct manner?
    - megous 7y ago
      The example person in the article didn't stay silent to the end.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      There is a bit of nuance. The executive summary is that you have to actually "plea the fifth" instead of just remaining silent. The legal system is super complicated. Never assume you know everything you need to know and always have a lawyer present when dealing with police.
  - jc01480 7y ago
    Consider that some states have laws considering silence, or a refusal to deny allegations, as direct evidence of culpability. Texas is one of those states. Laws reflect human nature about as much as fire is similar to ice.
    - dahart 7y ago
      Since Miranda rights are part of a Federal, constitutional right to not require self-incrimination, I was curious about what you mean, and found this: https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ "No discussion of Texas Miranda laws is complete without mentioning the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court said that you must affirmatively invoke your right to remain silent, or it doesn’t count. It’s not enough just to shuffle your feet and look away." Edit: reading a bit more about it, I don't think this specific case amounts to a law against being silent or one that is specific to Texas. This was a Supreme Court case, and the issue is the defendant wasn't under arrest and wasn't Mirandized and was already talking to police when he went "silent". https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 "Question: Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?" Conclusion: No, by 5-4 decision. What this means is, if you haven't been arrested, then you do have to say out loud something like "I'm exercising my right to remain silent." As far as I can tell this is true in all US states. Once arrested you still presumably have the right to literally remain silent, even in Texas, under the Fifth Amendment. Is this the one you were thinking of, or is there some other law or case you're thinking of?
- CUViper 7y ago
  Where do you draw the line on answering questions as a witness, versus refusing to answer as a potential accused person?
  - tacon 7y ago
    After consulting your attorney before answering anything, you answer their questions through your attorney. If they want your testimony live, they can subpoena you. I was in a real estate investing meetup at Halloween where people were sharing scary stories. The scariest was told by a guy who was, unknown to him, dealing with a corrupt mortgage broker. Two FBI agents knocked on his door and "wanted to ask some questions". He told them he would be happy to talk to them with his lawyer in their office the next morning, but he wasn't saying anything at that time. He figures that stall potentially saved him tens of thousands of dollars by not being dragged into a blanket indictment.
- grkvlt 7y ago
  Simple advice, yes. I would disagree on the 'easy to follow' part - it's very difficult to stand your ground against someone with the authority and powers of a police officer, especially in a tense or confusing situation. Alternatively, perhaps the officer is presenting things as a completely innocuous situation, where only someone like a sociopathic, unhelpful criminal with something to hide would refuse to respond, and so on. It makes it very psychologically demanding and emotionally draining to keep saying 'no comment' and yet still remember that you are doing the right thing and absolutely have the right to keep doing so.

by sysbin 7y ago

Ntrails 7y ago

> I think the best situation for an accused person is refusing to talk [to the police] Simple advice, and easy to follow. Even if you are innocent, understand the police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you. Do Not Help Them.

chrisseaton 7y ago
In some cases not speaking to the Police can damage your defence later, though.
- DenisM 7y ago
  Such as?
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Such as if you had an alibi that you try to use as a defence in court but you didn't mention it when questioned by Police in the first place. This can cast doubt on the alibi - presumably because people will think you made it up later and if it was true you should have been able to say so in the first place. > it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights
    - the_snooze 7y ago
      I think what everyone is getting at is that you should refuse any questioning at all, full stop.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        Yes I know - but the problem with that is that when you get to court and try to defend yourself, your defence will be weaker because you didn't answer questions at the time. It's bad advice.
        the_snooze 7y ago
        No, your defense will be weaker if you talk because the prosecution will use your words against you. They're not going to give you virtue points for being kind to them and not bothering them with things like asserting your right to an attorney. That's not their job. That's exactly what defense attorneys and police themselves advise. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-poli...
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        Well the law in some jurisdictions says explicitly > it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court As in the jury are allowed to take into account the fact that you did not reveal information at the first opportunity as a negative.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        erispoe 7y ago
        That's something that your solicitor would know and advise on. There is still no reason to talk to the police without an attorney/solicitor present.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Dkastro92 7y ago
  With today's technology I don't think you need to talk without a lawyer to better case your alibi. You have to remember that it is legal (USA) for the police to lie to you but not the other way around.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Every defense attorney I've talked to says they've had a hundreds of cases where they wished their client hadn't talked to the cops. And they've never mentioned one where they wished their client had talked to the cops. Oh Chris you're from the UK. I think most people on this thread are assuming you're talking about the u.s. where you should absolutely not talk to the cops until a lawyer is present. It must work differently in the UK where either the cops and prosecutors are less aggressively trying to convict you no matter your innocence or guilt. Or not speaking to the cops is held against you far more.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    If you had a really rock-solid alibi - something that meant there was not even a remote possibility that you were the offender, would you still not bring it up at all to the Police? You'd go all the way to court, months later, and only then bring it up?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - TACIXAT 7y ago
      What if the police aren't questioning you about what they say? Your alibi can place you where they want to place you.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - DanBC 7y ago
      In the US: you don't ever talk to the police for any reason unless you have a lawyer with you telling you what to say. You're completely right about the UK though. If you didn't do it and police are asking if you did it it's normally much easier to just tell them that you didn't do it, and this has very little risk. The risk comes from people who have committed the offence, but who think that it's a minor issue and think that just explaining it to police will mean they can go. If the police stop you and you have a self-defence baseball bat in the boot of your car then you need to say "it's for playing baseball with the kids". As soon as you say "it's for self-defence, just to scare people off, I'd never hit anyone with it" that converts it into an offence and police are a bit touchy about weapons at the moment.
S_A_P 7y ago
IANAL, but in the USA, even if the charge is jaywalking and you are arrested ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY. DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS without an attorney present. They may try and delay you from retaining an attorney, but when asked a question the only response should be "I want an attorney". Anecdotally, I am someone who is prone to feeling claustrophobic when I'm in an enclosed space or feeling pressured by people. I could see how 8-12 hours of intense questioning and not knowing my rights could easily turn into "I will say whatever you want, just get me out of this space."
- bscphil 7y ago
  >IANAL, but in the USA, even if the charge is jaywalking and you are arrested ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY. DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS without an attorney present. They may try and delay you from retaining an attorney, but when asked a question the only response should be "I want an attorney". I want to know (from anyone who is well-informed) how exactly this works out for the poor and middle class. In the movies they say "I want to speak to my attorney", but 90% of the population don't have a "my attorney", so if you just demand an attorney, what happens next? Do they hand you a phone book, and you have to thumb through to the lawyer section of the yellow pages? If you just demand (generic) "an attorney", do they have one on staff they can give you, or fetch one from a nearby court? What's the process like? Do you have a right to a free attorney when you're making a statement to the police, or only in court? And is it legal for a police officer to pretend to be an attorney? (Seen this in several movies.) Is stuff you say to an officer pretending to be an attorney admissible in court? Basically, the problem gets more complicated for anyone who doesn't retain an attorney, and much more complicated for anyone who can't afford one. How does it work exactly?
  - dyu 7y ago
    I am not well-informed, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning : >If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
    - xur17 7y ago
est31 7y ago
Obligatory lecture on this topic (must watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- jneplokh 7y ago
  I recommend this lecture to everyone I know. Absolutely crucial to watch it and be aware.
- itronitron 7y ago
  an important point in that video is that if you say anything, and someone else (for exampe a police officer) says something else, then it becomes your word against the police officer's in court
moosey 7y ago
Eye witness testimony is crap too. Even if you could answer pointed questions about your whereabouts in any given evening using Google maps, human recollection of events and their details is not great. There are questions I am capable of answering with the police but I must accept that most questions I answer could be wrong, or another witness could be wrong and now the police can use my evidence to accuse me off being a liar... Which happens to innocent people in the US because our prison system isn't about Justice, it's about maximizing the slave count in the private prison system.
- megous 7y ago
  Can there really be consequences for contradicting the other witness, without other indications pointing to who's right? Contradictory witness statements have to be really common.
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    >Can there really be consequences for contradicting the other witness, without other indications pointing to who's right? Yes. The end-goal is to infer that the suspect is being deceptive and/or lying and that, in turn, would make any statements that give the suspect any "good light" weighted less credible to their own defence. "You said you didn't shoot the suspect but you also said you wore an off-blue shirt. 'X' said the shirt they say you in was solid blue. Why would you lie about the colour of your shirt!? And, since you're lying about that, how do we know you're not lying about shooting the victim?"
  - moosey 7y ago
    Yes. It's typically then used to attack "your credibility".
- winfred 7y ago
  Private prisons only amount to 8.4% of the prison system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
  - 7y ago
DanBC 7y ago
> police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you ...in the US. If you're in England and you didn't do it then it's normally a good idea to clear things up. You can have a solicitor with you. Of course, if you've been arrested then you should make use of the solicitor and follow their advice - which will usually be "explain what happened and where you were at the time", unless you did in fact do it where their advice might be "explain in these terms what happened", or "just say 'no comment' to every question".
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Police in the UK have the same goals as police in the US, it's just that American police are often more aggressive about it. American lawyers will often give that same advice, tell your story to clear things up so that you can go home. It's still generally smarter to wait until you have the advice from the lawyer before you start yapping though.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    They do retain their principles of policing by consent. They are a citizen in uniform rather than a force in opposition to the citizens. It does generally change the attitude in nearly all dealings. UK police can't lie to suspects in interview or bring out some false evidence to encourage you to confess, and interviews have to be fully recorded. Yes, of course there have been some that break the rules.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  Not great advice. I personally would ask for a solicitor. He or she will advise appropriately.
- hackermailman 7y ago
  The lawyer will stop you from going over the top with your defense though, clarifying all statements such as changing the panicked reaction to a serious accusation:"I've never even been to that city!" with "I haven't been to that city recently" which is a huge difference should the police later discover a tiny piece of evidence like a social media posting or receipt showing you did indeed go to that city once upon a time 10+ years ago. If you don't clarify then they can say you are a liar and made a provably false statement to the police during court.
DenisM 7y ago
There is nuance to that - simply remaining silent is not the same thing as asserting silence, and is not as effective. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Wow, how messed up is that? "You have a right to remain silent" can't be interpreted in the most direct manner?
  - megous 7y ago
    The example person in the article didn't stay silent to the end.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    There is a bit of nuance. The executive summary is that you have to actually "plea the fifth" instead of just remaining silent. The legal system is super complicated. Never assume you know everything you need to know and always have a lawyer present when dealing with police.
- jc01480 7y ago
  Consider that some states have laws considering silence, or a refusal to deny allegations, as direct evidence of culpability. Texas is one of those states. Laws reflect human nature about as much as fire is similar to ice.
  - dahart 7y ago
    Since Miranda rights are part of a Federal, constitutional right to not require self-incrimination, I was curious about what you mean, and found this: https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ "No discussion of Texas Miranda laws is complete without mentioning the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court said that you must affirmatively invoke your right to remain silent, or it doesn’t count. It’s not enough just to shuffle your feet and look away." Edit: reading a bit more about it, I don't think this specific case amounts to a law against being silent or one that is specific to Texas. This was a Supreme Court case, and the issue is the defendant wasn't under arrest and wasn't Mirandized and was already talking to police when he went "silent". https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 "Question: Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?" Conclusion: No, by 5-4 decision. What this means is, if you haven't been arrested, then you do have to say out loud something like "I'm exercising my right to remain silent." As far as I can tell this is true in all US states. Once arrested you still presumably have the right to literally remain silent, even in Texas, under the Fifth Amendment. Is this the one you were thinking of, or is there some other law or case you're thinking of?
CUViper 7y ago
Where do you draw the line on answering questions as a witness, versus refusing to answer as a potential accused person?
- tacon 7y ago
  After consulting your attorney before answering anything, you answer their questions through your attorney. If they want your testimony live, they can subpoena you. I was in a real estate investing meetup at Halloween where people were sharing scary stories. The scariest was told by a guy who was, unknown to him, dealing with a corrupt mortgage broker. Two FBI agents knocked on his door and "wanted to ask some questions". He told them he would be happy to talk to them with his lawyer in their office the next morning, but he wasn't saying anything at that time. He figures that stall potentially saved him tens of thousands of dollars by not being dragged into a blanket indictment.
grkvlt 7y ago
Simple advice, yes. I would disagree on the 'easy to follow' part - it's very difficult to stand your ground against someone with the authority and powers of a police officer, especially in a tense or confusing situation. Alternatively, perhaps the officer is presenting things as a completely innocuous situation, where only someone like a sociopathic, unhelpful criminal with something to hide would refuse to respond, and so on. It makes it very psychologically demanding and emotionally draining to keep saying 'no comment' and yet still remember that you are doing the right thing and absolutely have the right to keep doing so.