4 ms·

The cynic in me says that police agencies are only entertaining the idea of these reforms because the dragnet is so good it has mostly supplanted false convicti

The cynic in me says that police agencies are only entertaining the idea of these reforms because the dragnet is so good it has mostly supplanted false convictions as the supplier of evidence for otherwise bogus convictions with the added benefit of the police not depending on the suspect for any of it. Regardless, government officials of any agency should not be permitted to lie to people except in the narrowest of circumstances (i.e. undercover cop and little more).

adamcstephens 6y ago
Narrowest of circumstances tend to become truck size loopholes.
galaxyLogic 6y ago
As an example I think it should be especially illegal for the president to lie to the nation. The job of the president is to lead the nation. But if the president is lying to the nation s/he is misleading the nation. Not kosher. Whereas normal people lying is not such a big deal because they can mislead only a few people. The president can mislead the whole nation.
- astrange 6y ago
  "Illegal" doesn't apply to the president, who is above the law[1]. Instead, Congress can impeach and remove him for anything they want, whether it's a law or not. [1] although not above DC law https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-president-a/ https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-pre...
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    While this is the current policy of the DoJ, to the best of my knowledge it is not explicitly stated in any law, nor is it stated in the Constitution. The President is able to take illegal acts, and it is only the power of the President to obstruct justice that prevents the President from being charged with those illegal acts. Edit:Though I agree that impeachment need not be for crimes on the books, and is solely at the decision of the Senate. The scope of impeachment is wider than the scope of laws, and the President must be answerable to both.
    - astrange 6y ago
      I agree he could be convicted theoretically, but it would be difficult and he certainly can't be imprisoned. The enumerated ways of removing the president are the only ones; the judicial system can't remove him by locking him up.
      - galaxyLogic 6y ago
        It makes practical sense that DOJ cannot imprison the president because president is the boss of everyone working in and under DOJ. So s/he could (and probably would) simply give them the order not to lock him or her up. But after s/he is out of the office I see no reason why s/he could not be imprisoned by the next president for the crimes committed while in office.
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    I'm not a constitutional scholar but I think it would be absurd to claim that president is "above the law". Why? Because the president only gets his or her powers from the law, the constitution. If president would be above the law it would mean that the constitution does not apply to him or her. And if so then anything the constitution says about him or her could not apply to him or her, because s/he would be "above it". So you can not claim that on one hand president has some powers because the constitution says so, and then claim that s/he does not have to abide by the constitutional law because .. s/he is above the law. SEE ALSO: https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/09/chemerinsky-supreme-court-affirms-that-president-is-not-above-the-law/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/09/chemerinsky-supreme-cou...

adamcstephens 6y ago

Narrowest of circumstances tend to become truck size loopholes.

galaxyLogic 6y ago

As an example I think it should be especially illegal for the president to lie to the nation. The job of the president is to lead the nation. But if the president is lying to the nation s/he is misleading the nation. Not kosher. Whereas normal people lying is not such a big deal because they can mislead only a few people. The president can mislead the whole nation.

astrange 6y ago
"Illegal" doesn't apply to the president, who is above the law[1]. Instead, Congress can impeach and remove him for anything they want, whether it's a law or not. [1] although not above DC law https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-president-a/ https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-pre...
- MereInterest 6y ago
  While this is the current policy of the DoJ, to the best of my knowledge it is not explicitly stated in any law, nor is it stated in the Constitution. The President is able to take illegal acts, and it is only the power of the President to obstruct justice that prevents the President from being charged with those illegal acts. Edit:Though I agree that impeachment need not be for crimes on the books, and is solely at the decision of the Senate. The scope of impeachment is wider than the scope of laws, and the President must be answerable to both.
  - astrange 6y ago
    I agree he could be convicted theoretically, but it would be difficult and he certainly can't be imprisoned. The enumerated ways of removing the president are the only ones; the judicial system can't remove him by locking him up.
    - galaxyLogic 6y ago
      It makes practical sense that DOJ cannot imprison the president because president is the boss of everyone working in and under DOJ. So s/he could (and probably would) simply give them the order not to lock him or her up. But after s/he is out of the office I see no reason why s/he could not be imprisoned by the next president for the crimes committed while in office.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  I'm not a constitutional scholar but I think it would be absurd to claim that president is "above the law". Why? Because the president only gets his or her powers from the law, the constitution. If president would be above the law it would mean that the constitution does not apply to him or her. And if so then anything the constitution says about him or her could not apply to him or her, because s/he would be "above it". So you can not claim that on one hand president has some powers because the constitution says so, and then claim that s/he does not have to abide by the constitutional law because .. s/he is above the law. SEE ALSO: https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/09/chemerinsky-supreme-court-affirms-that-president-is-not-above-the-law/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/09/chemerinsky-supreme-cou...