13 ms·

> After hours of interrogation, police told one of the teenagers, Terrill Swift, that if he just confessed to being at the scene he could go home — so he did.

> After hours of interrogation, police told one of the teenagers, Terrill Swift, that if he just confessed to being at the scene he could go home — so he did. What's the advantage to society of allowing interviewers to lie (to anyone, let alone kids)? Not just insinuate something like "your partner's in the next room, it's only a matter of time until he talks so you should come clean now", but blatantly lie and then be able to rely on the result of that in court? It kinda feels a little like the common law doctrine of Promissary Estoppel [0] where if someone relies on something you've promised, you can't then hold them responsible for relying on that thing. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel

elliekelly 5y ago
And then he didn’t get to go home for 20 years.
_fat_santa 5y ago
I also never understood this. It almost seems as if interrogations aren't for discovery of information but moreso "we have this lead and we're going to beat you into submission until you confirm our lead". You see it all the time with wrongful convictions and people signing confessions to crimes they didn't commit. I often wonder in these cases, do the officers, does law enforcement in this case really care who did it? If you bring someone in and interrogate them for 12+ hours and eventually they give you the answer you want to hear, do they never stop and ask themselves if the reason the person gave that answer is simply to make whatever they were doing stop? It seems like some of these investigations the point isn't to solve the crime, but to dot the I's and cross your T's. It seems like actual public safety is an afterthought as long as you "catch the criminal" on paper.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Interrogations are where they think they have a case against you but it's not good enough so they try and mislead you into making their jobs easier by giving them more evidence against you. If they're going through the effort of asking you questions in a controlled setting it's because they're trying to make sure anything they get is 100% unambiguously admissible in court.
  - hansthehorse 5y ago
    There is a reason why they don't tell you "anything you say can and will be used either for or against you in a court of law".
- Aerroon 5y ago
  >does law enforcement in this case really care who did it? Law enforcement is an organization and all the baggage that usually comes with organizations still applies (eg maintaining the organization is a priority). LEOs are people that want to do people things - it's a job, not a way of life.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    They also have a lot of political pressure to "solve crimes," which is literally a score board. I'm not excusing what they do in any way. It's a big mess of a system with too many incompetent bureaucratic careerists who seem to be short on ethics. I liken it as a game which didn't take hackers into account when designing the system, and the hackers are now rampant, ruining the game, except it isn't a game.
    - Simulacra 5y ago
      They also have a lot of political pressure to "solve crimes," which is literally a score board. While also being handicapped (budget cuts) and undermined (blamed) by politicians. On the one hand politicians demand lower crime, but at the same time denounce the police as the source of societal conflict.
      - weeblewobble 5y ago
        LAPD budget is about 15% of the total LA city budget. NYPD is about 11% of total NYC city budget
      - handrous 5y ago
        Maybe looks are deceiving, but officers and their vehicles sure look like they're having a whole lot more money spent on them than they were in, say, the 90s. They have more stuff, it all looks fairly new, and it all looks slicker, meaner, and more "apart" from normal folks, than it used to. I'm not talking about SWAT or armored cars or any of that stuff, either, but normal stuff that ordinary officers wear, carry, and drive.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  I saw something before that said something like 80% of cops thought they had never arrested an innocent person. From that, it is likely that they believe these people are the criminals but the crafty villains won't admit it without being tricked. It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded. Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. It's extremely easy to justify bad deeds and fool yourself that the ends justify the means.
    - serenloss 5y ago
      I think one could make a strong argument that Stalin always knowingly acted in the best interest of Stalin.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      This seems like a valid, if hyperbolic, point to me. I think that one could make a plausible argument that one of the most basic implications of the principle of rule of law is that, at least where the police are concerned, the ends don't justify the means. Allowing them to behave otherwise isn't a slippery slope that leads to rampant abuse of power; it's a dead drop.
    - eldavido 5y ago
      Great illustration of why respect for individual rights is so important. There will always be some megalomaniac, whether dictator, president, cop, or some authority figure, who "knows best". Individual rights are the brakes. They're the lines we've agreed not to cross as a society, even when we're really sure we "know best". Example: property rights. No matter how sure you are that there's stolen property in the building, even law enforcement doesn't get to enter without a warrant. Individual rights limit what others can do.
- briandear 5y ago
  I completely agree. Some of the Jan 6 protestors have recently plead guilty to trespassing or similar petty nonsense after being held im solitary confinement for over 6 months in a DC jail. Solitary confinement for what ends up being a trespassing misdemeanor. Actual public safety is an afterthought. The point isn’t to solve a crime, but to punish enemies or to boost conviction rates.
  - peteretep 5y ago
    > Actual public safety is an afterthought Are we talking about the people who participated in a violent insurrection against the US, or is this another group? If you want to have nice things (eg: a democracy) then you can’t be letting people who commit some mild treason off just because they’re dumbasses who got caught up in the moment. The next yahoo who decides they want to try and block the peaceful transfer of power needs to 100% understand that they will be prosecuted.
    - adolph 5y ago
      The parent comment says they "plead guilty to trespassing or similar petty nonsense" so I'd assume they weren't charged with "violent insurrection" and "mild treason."
      - peteretep 5y ago
        And they got Capone for tax evasion. Brushing off a conviction under 18 U.S. Code § 1752 -- which seems to be what people are being charged[0] with -- as "petty nonsense" is itself misleading, as it's the part of law that deals with "PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT"[1] [0] https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1 https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-ar... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-84 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-84
        adolph 5y ago
        I’d agree that reality is likely somewhere between “petty trespassing” and “violent insurrection.”
- Jenk 5y ago
  The show on Netflix "Making a Murderer" has some scary examples of this. Not only of the lying during interrogation but of just how pervasive this mentality is. During an appeal to the 7th (iirc) District Court, the ADA's argument always came down to "What about Justice for the victim'a family?" like somehow it isn't even relevant anymore if they have the wrong guy or not - if they decided that the recently convicted was wrongfully convicted, it would be unfair to the victim's family to let him go, even if he isn't guilty.
- IQunder130 5y ago
  This does raise the question of how many cases are actually up in the air at all. One would think that given the IQ distribution of criminals a majority of cases involving arrests are quite open and shut, with suspects usually being caught either red handed or after not covering their tracks at all. A justice system optimized for public safety will err on the side of putting aggressive, anti-social individuals behind bars rather than making absolutely sure they really did do the thing most of them were caught doing. Public safety is therefore orthogonal or even somewhat opposed to the pursuit of truth.
- notJim 5y ago
  I think your baseline assumption about the US "justice system" should be that it is a horror show from top to bottom. If you expect any kind of rationality, fairness or common sense idea of justice, you will not find it.
- rrauenza 5y ago
  You might find these videos interesting as they analyze interrogations and the subject's behavior. Sometimes the lying is part of eliciting responses that can be analyzed. https://www.youtube.com/c/jcscriminalpsychology https://www.youtube.com/c/jcscriminalpsychology I'm not particular fond of the lying though and the asymmetry ... You can't lie to law enforcement but they can lie to you.
pseudo0 5y ago
Because it's effective I guess? A couple hours of successful interrogation can save tens or hundreds of hours of investigation. And one of their main goals is to elicit information that can be independently confirmed. For example, if someone confesses to a shooting and tells the police where they hid the gun, and the gun is found there, that's a good indication that the confession was probably legitimate. Edit: Geez, I was just answering the question... At the end of the day, it's up to society to determine whether it thinks the effectiveness of the method is worth the potential moral hazard of false confessions under pressure. In my opinion, there does need to be better policy for police departments to assign little weight to confessions with zero corroboration that cannot even accurately describe the facts of the case.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> Because it's effective I guess? So the end justifies the means. I'm not a fan of that philosophy, as it can be used to justify all kinds of things and leads to a lack of integrity.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Agreed, and moreover is there even any evidence that it is effective? Or rather, effective at uncovering the truth as opposed to effective at eliciting a [potentially untruthful] confession?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  And that’s how authoritarian police states are build. One “but it’s effective” and “they’re just criminals” at a time. By the time “good citizens” discover that it’s being used against them too, it’s far too late.
- glitchc 5y ago
  Doing away with anyone who may possibly commit a crime is even more effective at combating crime than the existing options. Let's go with that. Heck, let's take care of it at birth, most efficient of all! /s
dfxm12 5y ago
Time and time again, we've seen how the justice system doesn't benefit society at large. At this point, I think it's naïve to think that's its goal. Instead, we see how it's about controlling people like Terrill Swift & feeding the prison industrial complex. In a lot of states (including Il), you can't vote while in prison. Having a conviction greatly lowers your ability to find a job, get a mortgage, or access to some government benefits. Also Promissory Estoppel is a concept in contract law. Do you think a reasonable person would think that a police interrogation is a contract? Does it meet the elements of a contract? I don't think so.
- tomalpha 5y ago
  I completely agree about Promissory Estoppel and contract law. I was (perhaps unclearly) trying to demonstrate that other areas of the law do address the principle of relying on a promise when making a decision. I think the principle could and should apply to some extent in this situation here too. Something like: if you were misled into making a confession - perhaps relying on a promise or lie told to you by the interviewer - then at the very least that confession should be considered deeply suspect.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I think the only layer that we can fix these kinds of issues is in court. Juries should only be allowed to hear objective facts. No character testimonies, no eye witnesses, no confessions after a 12 hour interrogation. Objective facts only. This would likely mean guilty people don't get convicted, but I think that is a worthy tradeoff for a more fair justice system. An innocent person going to jail is much more egregious than a guilty person going free.
  - jschwartzi 5y ago
    This wouldn’t work, because a person’s intent matters for many crimes.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Good luck telling an eye witness that what they saw isn't an objective fact, or the DA that the handwritten, signed confession in his hand isn't an objective fact.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Because the purpose of the police are not actually there to protect society. They’re there to protect the existing social order. Anything else is a fringe benefit, at best.
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  What would be the difference between those two things? As in, what would a police who’s job it was to “protect society” do that current police do not? Or vice-versa, would such a police still protect from theft or violence?
  - Arrath 5y ago
    They would still protect from theft and violence, of course. Lets keep in mind that as it stands now, the police don't do that great in the realm of theft anyway.[0] But there are many shortfalls in the system as a whole, and not just the beat cops doing the policing. We need police back in neighborhoods, doing beat patrols, living the in cities and suburbs they police, not commuting in from an hour away. Being rich shouldn't be an easy out because you can hire a high power lawyer, or treat most offences as a minor fine. Why does robbing the bank from the inside get a relative slap on the wrist, while robbing it through the front door gets you shot? Lets hit a few high points: End the 'boys club', actually go after sex crimes with a sense of urgency and not let rape kits pile up in evidence rooms, untested?[1] Not run straight up black sites?[2] Properly allow freedom of speech and expression, and not come down harder on protests the police themselves don't agree with?[3] Do a little introspection and address the rampant domestic abuse perpetrated by police?[4] [0]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-... [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2019/07/nationwide-epidemic-of-untested-rape-kits-atlantic-daily/594046/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2019/07/nati... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli... [3]https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/us/protest-disparity-study-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/us/protest-disparity-study-tr... [4]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
pc86 5y ago
The problem is that things get worse if you mandate the other side - that officers are prohibited from lying in any interrogation. If that's the case it becomes trivial for a guilty suspect to get information out of the officer because they know that if the officer lies [s]he'll get in trouble. So you end up with this weird area where you want them to be able to lie if necessary, but in general prefer that they didn't. There's not an easy answer.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Prohibiting them from lying in no way equals requiring them to fully answer any question that is asked.
- CWuestefeld 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's "worse" - it seems that's actually what the situation is today but with the tables reversed. AIUI, it's pretty common that when they can't get you for the crime they think you committed, that they'll just goad you into a casual mis-statement (i.e., lying), and lock you up for the lie. That's exactly what happened to Martha Stewart, for example. What (apparently) seemed to her to be a minor omission that had no bearing on the case, suddenly becomes the cause for her prosecution. The end result of this is that anyone with a clue knows that the best policy is, simply, never talk to police. There's nothing you can say that will make things better (the die is already cast), and you can do yourself a world of hurt. And you can't even know ahead of time whether you're suspect. So the best course of action is simply to refuse to talk to police ever. How is a situation in which the public refuses to help the police any worse than taking these tools away from the police? Obligatory anecdote: I went skeet shooting with a friend. The next day, for some reason, I still had a bunch of spent shotgun shells sitting on the table. That morning the police came to my door, and I let them in the house to talk since it was cold out. They started asking for information about an incident where someone had shot out a car window with a BB gun. Later I realized that I had those empty shotgun shells sitting right in their sight. If you're not aware, "BB" is actually the designation of a particular small size of shot (like #8 being used for deer and #4 or #0 used for turkey or birds; BB is smaller than #0). So although I knew nothing of the BB incident, and was certainly innocent, I had inadvertently given the police some reason to suspect my involvement. In actuality, nothing came of this, but given the way these things go, I would have been safer to have just said "sorry, officer", and refused to deal with them.
throwawaycities 5y ago
> What's the advantage to society of allowing interviewers to lie (to anyone, let alone kids)? I suppose in many instances lies and bluffs have resulted in the desired outcome. But not all lies/bluffs are the same, and I agree with you that telling a suspect in interrogation that they have immunity if they just say X is problematic, but I think it is reflected in the current case law and any evidence obtained in such a scenario would likely be suppressed. I’ve seen more than a few interrogations, a similar one went something like this: Cop: look, we just want to recover the gun, we don’t care about anything else, just tell us where the gun is. Suspect: oh…you just want the gun? Cop: yeah. Suspect: yeah, I bet you do. Now the thing is this suspect actually shot someone from his car into an adjacent car, he fled and discarded the firearm, then returned to the scene after police had arrived and he was immediately arrested. It always amazed me someone so dumb as to drive right back to the scene of the crime and deliver himself into the hands of police was so aware and savvy during the interrogation.
spamizbad 5y ago
Simple: The attitude held by many in the law enforcement and justice system is that if you get swept up by police, you're probably guilty of something, so getting you off the street - even by coercing a false statement - makes the world a better place. The end justifying the means. My neighborhood in Chicago has a cop enclave inside it and they are absolutely lighting up our neighborhood political discussion group irate about this law, talking about how many murders and rapists are going to go free.
- wyldfire 5y ago
  > how many murders and rapists are going to go free. How many murderers and rapists are minors? Probably not many.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    Unfortunately, quite a lot. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-in-the-us-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-...
    - AJ007 5y ago
      Especially in Chicago where an astounding number of murders go unsolved, most of which are gang related. While higher for whites, for African American victims, The close rate was near 20%, something most Americans may associate with Guatemala or Mexico - https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/10/09/768552458/chicago-s-dismal-murder-solve-rate-even-worse-when-victims-are-black https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/10/09/768552458/chicago-s... Based on arrest histories of gang members and failures to prosecute even closed cases, one should assume that there are a large number of serial killers operating in Chicago, many of who started as minors. While most middle and upper class Americans dismiss this as just gang members killing each other, so it’s no big deal, this clearly would not be tolerated in a largely white suburban setting, gang associated or otherwise.
      - rovolo 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Simulacra 5y ago
Police are allowed to lie to you [0] and it's been a staple of police investigations and interrogations ever since. In reading this article I'm horrified that police were ever allowed to lie to children. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > Police are allowed to lie to you Not everywhere. The UK hasn't allowed police to lie when interviewing suspects since the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, known as PACE. It would be a good idea if countries (not just the US and not just in policing) were to look for best practice outside their own borders occasionally.
  - vkou 5y ago
    The UK also considers remaining silent during an interrogation or trial to be an indication of guilt.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      Is that strictly the case? I thought it was more like "if you remain silent initially that can be used against you if you later try to make statements in your defense"
      - vkou 5y ago
        My understanding is that it's both. If you bring up an alibi during trial, but never mentioned it during interrogation, it is an indication of guilt. If you don't say anything at all during either trial, or interrogation, it is also an indication of guilt.
        foldr 5y ago
        I'm not sure how much difference it makes in practice. It's the jury that decide. A jury in the US might equally be suspicious of an alibi that the defendant didn't mention until late in the process. Also, it's not really true that merely remaining silent is taken to be an indication of guilt. The point is that an adverse inference may be drawn from silence in basically the same way that an adverse inference may be drawn from a statement made to police. The prosecution can't just say "the defendant said nothing when questioned and is therefore guilty".
cal5k 5y ago
There seems to be a lot of ignorance in this thread about interrogation techniques. The Toronto van killer interrogation is really instructive as to how the best interrogators conduct themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHgtSy41VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHgtSy41VM The suspect is repeatedly reminded of his right to counsel, given water, asked if he is hungry, etc. The intent here is to firmly establish that the suspect's rights have been respected - key to making sure the interrogation tapes are admissible in court. The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. By the end of the two-hours-and-change video, Minassian has opened up and produced a confession so good that his defence counsel could only try to argue that he wasn't of sound mind. Not all interrogators are this skilled - this was a very high-profile case, so the Toronto Police deployed their best - but it seems obvious that better training rather than banning useful techniques would result in more favourable outcomes. There is still the issue of innocent people getting caught up in the system or admitting to crimes they didn't commit, but I'd suggest that there are better approaches like, once again, education of the public. You might be uncomfortable and scared for some period of time, but you do not have to talk to the police.
- lostapathy 5y ago
  > The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. I feel like there's a fundamental difference between an interrogator lying about his own back story to build rapport and them lying about other evidence, witnesses or their authority to make a deal, etc.
  - 55555 5y ago
    From what I've seen in the USA they normally lie about evidence and witnesses but they are careful to never lie explicitly about making a deal. That can apparently screw up the entire case, I think because of a supreme court decision.
  - 5y ago
autokad 5y ago
> "What's the advantage to society of allowing interviewers to lie (to anyone, let alone kids)?" no one would ever get convicted if police didn't lie. If no one can ever get convicted, either we can murder rape and steal without consequence or we'd have to live in an absolute monitored police state. I think its beneficial they can lie. the real world isn't a SVU episode on TV with DNA, high resolution video, and witnesses. I don't know the percentage, but the vast majority of crime has and never will have evidence other than a witness or a confession. Also saying they can't lie is not easy, as you need an oracle of truth. So if something untruthful is said, does that mean they have to be let go? you mistake the date and they can go free? its impossible to police truth.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Now you sound like a DA, tough on crime. "No one would ever get convicted" - this is about people falsely confessing to crimes because of police lies. But I notice that in your statement, it's all about the conviction, not about the guilt.
  - autokad 5y ago
    No that was just in your head.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lhorie 5y ago
On a more basic level, how is the context of the conversation less relevant than the exact wording of any given uttered sentence? IMHO, if a judge hears "well he told me to lie so I did", the whole interrogation ought to be thrown out as ineligible. I ran into a similar situation once: an officer wanted to hear a very specific thing from me, so he asked me a question, then interrupted me mid-sentence when he heard the substring he wanted (the full sentence was along the lines of "we were planning on doing X, but not for another 5 years", where the point of contention was whether they could prove whether I was planning on doing X immediately), never mind that I was explicitly explaining how his theory was all wrong. Thankfully for me, this was with the Canada Border agency, which has an appeals process, and surely enough, when they read my side of the story, they overruled the officer in my favor.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > IMHO, if a judge hears "well he told me to lie so I did", the whole interrogation ought to be thrown out as ineligible. So, the defendant saying those magic words should automatically erase any statements the defendant made, whether or not the magic words are true? Or should perhaps, both the claim of inducement and the other statements remain in evidence, with the trier of fact deciding on the weight to give each?
  - lhorie 5y ago
    IANAL but my understanding is that there are specific criteria for what is admissible and what isn't. For example, there are very specific heuristics for determining whether something is hearsay. What I'm saying is that there should be a clear cut list of criteria regarding which circumstances are admissible (e.g. was the confession made freely or was there coercion/promises/negotiations/etc involved, was the conversation recorded/unadulterated, etc) and that this list should be properly followed to disqualify potential foul play, just as is done w/ hearsay.
voodootrucker 5y ago
I'm surprised (according to ctrl-f) no one has brought up Parallel Construction [1] I'm not sure what the benefit to society is, as you asked, but the benefit for law enforcement is that they can escape the intent of 4th amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
55555 5y ago
Oh boy, I don't think you've seen many interrogations. I've spent the past two weeks watching JCS - Criminal Psychology on YouTube. Lies are clearly a core part of interrogations. I haven't ever seen one where lying wasn't a core part of the strategy of the interrogator. Go watch some videos on that channel. It's really, really interesting. Never talk to the police.
- wolfram74 5y ago
  my read on GP is them not asking "is this common", but "why do we tolerate this being common".
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Are you saying lying is necessary or just that it's pervasive?
kwyjibo1230 5y ago
It seems to me like there's two main kinds of lies that interrogators use: 1. Lies about the process / promissary lies. e.g. "If you just confess, you can go home." 2. Lies about evidence. e.g. "We talked to {Friend|Family|Co-conspirator} and they said you did it and they have the {item} to prove it. It's not going to look good if you continue to lie to me." #1 seems obviously bad to me. Too high of a risk of tricking innocent people into thinking they can end the stress by falsely confessing. #2 seems less bad, possibly beneficial. There are other comments about how this can speed up interrogations by getting people who are guilty to think they've been caught and confess. I could be convinced otherwise. In my opinion, sounds like 1 and 2 should be illegal for minors. But 1 should be illegal in general, for adults too.
- Jiro 5y ago
  An innocent person who hears #2 may reason that the police are faking evidence, they'd better give a fake confession because otherwise the police will just use the faked evidence in court. He may not be up to date on the laws about exactly at what steps in the process the police are allowed to use the fake evidence. Alternatively, he might think that his friend actually implicated him and that he has the choice of saying nothing and being convicted because of that, or confessing to a lesser charge. Alternately, he might just think that police who'd fake evidence are corrupt, and that corrupt police could do a lot worse, like fake evidence against his whole family or just shoot him, so he'd better confess just to come out of this alive.
  - kwyjibo1230 5y ago
    Fair points. This is going to be especially unfair to people who do not speak English or have familiarity with US laws.
vkou 5y ago
The advantage is that a criminal confessing to their crimes is better for everyone else. Most people would rather see criminals not doing crime. This is so obvious, it's not clear why this has to be spelled out. The purpose of civil rights like the fifth amendment is not making life easy for criminals, the purpose is protecting innocent people. You can argue that the harm inflicted by some particular procedure to innocent people exceeds the benefits, but that becomes a utilitarian debate, rather than one about philosophical dogma.
erdos4d 5y ago
US society is designed so that a significant percentage of people will live in cages, far more than any other society on Earth currently. I guess this helps make that happen? I personally don't think this is right or beneficial, but it's something the US works very hard to accomplish and seems incapable of dialing back.
totalZero 5y ago
If interrogators can't lie then interrogated individuals can distill information about police investigations from their comments. I don't believe in misleading people about the law itself, but I cannot deny that there is power in the insinuation that you have more evidence than you actually have.
- shadowfox 5y ago
  > there is power in the insinuation that you have more evidence than you actually have This is true and there is power in all manners of things, including very abusive, immoral and possibly illegal things; there is a lot of power in threatening physical (or psychological) violence to people, for example. I guess the question is about which usage of power we should (ideally) endorse as a society as a matter of course .
codegeek 5y ago
In case people are not aware yet, please watch this video about "Don't talk to the police". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=1s
gjvnq 5y ago
This is one of the times I think Brazil manages to beat up the USA: we do not accept confessions unless they are confirmed in front of a judge. (Chapter V of the Brazilian Penal Process Code) Also, if you report yourself before the authorities know that the crime took place, you get an automatic reduction in your sentence (article 65 inciso II item b of the Brazilian Penal Code)

elliekelly 5y ago

And then he didn’t get to go home for 20 years.

_fat_santa 5y ago

I also never understood this. It almost seems as if interrogations aren't for discovery of information but moreso "we have this lead and we're going to beat you into submission until you confirm our lead". You see it all the time with wrongful convictions and people signing confessions to crimes they didn't commit. I often wonder in these cases, do the officers, does law enforcement in this case really care who did it? If you bring someone in and interrogate them for 12+ hours and eventually they give you the answer you want to hear, do they never stop and ask themselves if the reason the person gave that answer is simply to make whatever they were doing stop? It seems like some of these investigations the point isn't to solve the crime, but to dot the I's and cross your T's. It seems like actual public safety is an afterthought as long as you "catch the criminal" on paper.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Interrogations are where they think they have a case against you but it's not good enough so they try and mislead you into making their jobs easier by giving them more evidence against you. If they're going through the effort of asking you questions in a controlled setting it's because they're trying to make sure anything they get is 100% unambiguously admissible in court.
- hansthehorse 5y ago
  There is a reason why they don't tell you "anything you say can and will be used either for or against you in a court of law".
Aerroon 5y ago
>does law enforcement in this case really care who did it? Law enforcement is an organization and all the baggage that usually comes with organizations still applies (eg maintaining the organization is a priority). LEOs are people that want to do people things - it's a job, not a way of life.
- Clubber 5y ago
  They also have a lot of political pressure to "solve crimes," which is literally a score board. I'm not excusing what they do in any way. It's a big mess of a system with too many incompetent bureaucratic careerists who seem to be short on ethics. I liken it as a game which didn't take hackers into account when designing the system, and the hackers are now rampant, ruining the game, except it isn't a game.
  - Simulacra 5y ago
    They also have a lot of political pressure to "solve crimes," which is literally a score board. While also being handicapped (budget cuts) and undermined (blamed) by politicians. On the one hand politicians demand lower crime, but at the same time denounce the police as the source of societal conflict.
    - weeblewobble 5y ago
      LAPD budget is about 15% of the total LA city budget. NYPD is about 11% of total NYC city budget
    - handrous 5y ago
      Maybe looks are deceiving, but officers and their vehicles sure look like they're having a whole lot more money spent on them than they were in, say, the 90s. They have more stuff, it all looks fairly new, and it all looks slicker, meaner, and more "apart" from normal folks, than it used to. I'm not talking about SWAT or armored cars or any of that stuff, either, but normal stuff that ordinary officers wear, carry, and drive.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
I saw something before that said something like 80% of cops thought they had never arrested an innocent person. From that, it is likely that they believe these people are the criminals but the crafty villains won't admit it without being tricked. It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded. Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. It's extremely easy to justify bad deeds and fool yourself that the ends justify the means.
  - serenloss 5y ago
    I think one could make a strong argument that Stalin always knowingly acted in the best interest of Stalin.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    This seems like a valid, if hyperbolic, point to me. I think that one could make a plausible argument that one of the most basic implications of the principle of rule of law is that, at least where the police are concerned, the ends don't justify the means. Allowing them to behave otherwise isn't a slippery slope that leads to rampant abuse of power; it's a dead drop.
  - eldavido 5y ago
    Great illustration of why respect for individual rights is so important. There will always be some megalomaniac, whether dictator, president, cop, or some authority figure, who "knows best". Individual rights are the brakes. They're the lines we've agreed not to cross as a society, even when we're really sure we "know best". Example: property rights. No matter how sure you are that there's stolen property in the building, even law enforcement doesn't get to enter without a warrant. Individual rights limit what others can do.
briandear 5y ago
I completely agree. Some of the Jan 6 protestors have recently plead guilty to trespassing or similar petty nonsense after being held im solitary confinement for over 6 months in a DC jail. Solitary confinement for what ends up being a trespassing misdemeanor. Actual public safety is an afterthought. The point isn’t to solve a crime, but to punish enemies or to boost conviction rates.
- peteretep 5y ago
  > Actual public safety is an afterthought Are we talking about the people who participated in a violent insurrection against the US, or is this another group? If you want to have nice things (eg: a democracy) then you can’t be letting people who commit some mild treason off just because they’re dumbasses who got caught up in the moment. The next yahoo who decides they want to try and block the peaceful transfer of power needs to 100% understand that they will be prosecuted.
  - adolph 5y ago
    The parent comment says they "plead guilty to trespassing or similar petty nonsense" so I'd assume they weren't charged with "violent insurrection" and "mild treason."
    - peteretep 5y ago
      And they got Capone for tax evasion. Brushing off a conviction under 18 U.S. Code § 1752 -- which seems to be what people are being charged[0] with -- as "petty nonsense" is itself misleading, as it's the part of law that deals with "PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT"[1] [0] https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1 https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-ar... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-84 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-84
      - adolph 5y ago
        I’d agree that reality is likely somewhere between “petty trespassing” and “violent insurrection.”
Jenk 5y ago
The show on Netflix "Making a Murderer" has some scary examples of this. Not only of the lying during interrogation but of just how pervasive this mentality is. During an appeal to the 7th (iirc) District Court, the ADA's argument always came down to "What about Justice for the victim'a family?" like somehow it isn't even relevant anymore if they have the wrong guy or not - if they decided that the recently convicted was wrongfully convicted, it would be unfair to the victim's family to let him go, even if he isn't guilty.
IQunder130 5y ago
This does raise the question of how many cases are actually up in the air at all. One would think that given the IQ distribution of criminals a majority of cases involving arrests are quite open and shut, with suspects usually being caught either red handed or after not covering their tracks at all. A justice system optimized for public safety will err on the side of putting aggressive, anti-social individuals behind bars rather than making absolutely sure they really did do the thing most of them were caught doing. Public safety is therefore orthogonal or even somewhat opposed to the pursuit of truth.
notJim 5y ago
I think your baseline assumption about the US "justice system" should be that it is a horror show from top to bottom. If you expect any kind of rationality, fairness or common sense idea of justice, you will not find it.
rrauenza 5y ago
You might find these videos interesting as they analyze interrogations and the subject's behavior. Sometimes the lying is part of eliciting responses that can be analyzed. https://www.youtube.com/c/jcscriminalpsychology https://www.youtube.com/c/jcscriminalpsychology I'm not particular fond of the lying though and the asymmetry ... You can't lie to law enforcement but they can lie to you.

pseudo0 5y ago

Because it's effective I guess? A couple hours of successful interrogation can save tens or hundreds of hours of investigation. And one of their main goals is to elicit information that can be independently confirmed. For example, if someone confesses to a shooting and tells the police where they hid the gun, and the gun is found there, that's a good indication that the confession was probably legitimate. Edit: Geez, I was just answering the question... At the end of the day, it's up to society to determine whether it thinks the effectiveness of the method is worth the potential moral hazard of false confessions under pressure. In my opinion, there does need to be better policy for police departments to assign little weight to confessions with zero corroboration that cannot even accurately describe the facts of the case.

phkahler 5y ago
>> Because it's effective I guess? So the end justifies the means. I'm not a fan of that philosophy, as it can be used to justify all kinds of things and leads to a lack of integrity.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Agreed, and moreover is there even any evidence that it is effective? Or rather, effective at uncovering the truth as opposed to effective at eliciting a [potentially untruthful] confession?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ashtonkem 5y ago
And that’s how authoritarian police states are build. One “but it’s effective” and “they’re just criminals” at a time. By the time “good citizens” discover that it’s being used against them too, it’s far too late.
glitchc 5y ago
Doing away with anyone who may possibly commit a crime is even more effective at combating crime than the existing options. Let's go with that. Heck, let's take care of it at birth, most efficient of all! /s

dfxm12 5y ago

Time and time again, we've seen how the justice system doesn't benefit society at large. At this point, I think it's naïve to think that's its goal. Instead, we see how it's about controlling people like Terrill Swift & feeding the prison industrial complex. In a lot of states (including Il), you can't vote while in prison. Having a conviction greatly lowers your ability to find a job, get a mortgage, or access to some government benefits. Also Promissory Estoppel is a concept in contract law. Do you think a reasonable person would think that a police interrogation is a contract? Does it meet the elements of a contract? I don't think so.

tomalpha 5y ago
I completely agree about Promissory Estoppel and contract law. I was (perhaps unclearly) trying to demonstrate that other areas of the law do address the principle of relying on a promise when making a decision. I think the principle could and should apply to some extent in this situation here too. Something like: if you were misled into making a confession - perhaps relying on a promise or lie told to you by the interviewer - then at the very least that confession should be considered deeply suspect.
dahfizz 5y ago
I think the only layer that we can fix these kinds of issues is in court. Juries should only be allowed to hear objective facts. No character testimonies, no eye witnesses, no confessions after a 12 hour interrogation. Objective facts only. This would likely mean guilty people don't get convicted, but I think that is a worthy tradeoff for a more fair justice system. An innocent person going to jail is much more egregious than a guilty person going free.
- jschwartzi 5y ago
  This wouldn’t work, because a person’s intent matters for many crimes.
- pc86 5y ago
  Good luck telling an eye witness that what they saw isn't an objective fact, or the DA that the handwritten, signed confession in his hand isn't an objective fact.

ashtonkem 5y ago

Because the purpose of the police are not actually there to protect society. They’re there to protect the existing social order. Anything else is a fringe benefit, at best.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
What would be the difference between those two things? As in, what would a police who’s job it was to “protect society” do that current police do not? Or vice-versa, would such a police still protect from theft or violence?
- Arrath 5y ago
  They would still protect from theft and violence, of course. Lets keep in mind that as it stands now, the police don't do that great in the realm of theft anyway.[0] But there are many shortfalls in the system as a whole, and not just the beat cops doing the policing. We need police back in neighborhoods, doing beat patrols, living the in cities and suburbs they police, not commuting in from an hour away. Being rich shouldn't be an easy out because you can hire a high power lawyer, or treat most offences as a minor fine. Why does robbing the bank from the inside get a relative slap on the wrist, while robbing it through the front door gets you shot? Lets hit a few high points: End the 'boys club', actually go after sex crimes with a sense of urgency and not let rape kits pile up in evidence rooms, untested?[1] Not run straight up black sites?[2] Properly allow freedom of speech and expression, and not come down harder on protests the police themselves don't agree with?[3] Do a little introspection and address the rampant domestic abuse perpetrated by police?[4] [0]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-... [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2019/07/nationwide-epidemic-of-untested-rape-kits-atlantic-daily/594046/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2019/07/nati... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli... [3]https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/us/protest-disparity-study-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/us/protest-disparity-study-tr... [4]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...

pc86 5y ago

The problem is that things get worse if you mandate the other side - that officers are prohibited from lying in any interrogation. If that's the case it becomes trivial for a guilty suspect to get information out of the officer because they know that if the officer lies [s]he'll get in trouble. So you end up with this weird area where you want them to be able to lie if necessary, but in general prefer that they didn't. There's not an easy answer.

jaywalk 5y ago
Prohibiting them from lying in no way equals requiring them to fully answer any question that is asked.
CWuestefeld 5y ago
I'm not sure that's "worse" - it seems that's actually what the situation is today but with the tables reversed. AIUI, it's pretty common that when they can't get you for the crime they think you committed, that they'll just goad you into a casual mis-statement (i.e., lying), and lock you up for the lie. That's exactly what happened to Martha Stewart, for example. What (apparently) seemed to her to be a minor omission that had no bearing on the case, suddenly becomes the cause for her prosecution. The end result of this is that anyone with a clue knows that the best policy is, simply, never talk to police. There's nothing you can say that will make things better (the die is already cast), and you can do yourself a world of hurt. And you can't even know ahead of time whether you're suspect. So the best course of action is simply to refuse to talk to police ever. How is a situation in which the public refuses to help the police any worse than taking these tools away from the police? Obligatory anecdote: I went skeet shooting with a friend. The next day, for some reason, I still had a bunch of spent shotgun shells sitting on the table. That morning the police came to my door, and I let them in the house to talk since it was cold out. They started asking for information about an incident where someone had shot out a car window with a BB gun. Later I realized that I had those empty shotgun shells sitting right in their sight. If you're not aware, "BB" is actually the designation of a particular small size of shot (like #8 being used for deer and #4 or #0 used for turkey or birds; BB is smaller than #0). So although I knew nothing of the BB incident, and was certainly innocent, I had inadvertently given the police some reason to suspect my involvement. In actuality, nothing came of this, but given the way these things go, I would have been safer to have just said "sorry, officer", and refused to deal with them.

throwawaycities 5y ago

> What's the advantage to society of allowing interviewers to lie (to anyone, let alone kids)? I suppose in many instances lies and bluffs have resulted in the desired outcome. But not all lies/bluffs are the same, and I agree with you that telling a suspect in interrogation that they have immunity if they just say X is problematic, but I think it is reflected in the current case law and any evidence obtained in such a scenario would likely be suppressed. I’ve seen more than a few interrogations, a similar one went something like this: Cop: look, we just want to recover the gun, we don’t care about anything else, just tell us where the gun is. Suspect: oh…you just want the gun? Cop: yeah. Suspect: yeah, I bet you do. Now the thing is this suspect actually shot someone from his car into an adjacent car, he fled and discarded the firearm, then returned to the scene after police had arrived and he was immediately arrested. It always amazed me someone so dumb as to drive right back to the scene of the crime and deliver himself into the hands of police was so aware and savvy during the interrogation.

spamizbad 5y ago

Simple: The attitude held by many in the law enforcement and justice system is that if you get swept up by police, you're probably guilty of something, so getting you off the street - even by coercing a false statement - makes the world a better place. The end justifying the means. My neighborhood in Chicago has a cop enclave inside it and they are absolutely lighting up our neighborhood political discussion group irate about this law, talking about how many murders and rapists are going to go free.

wyldfire 5y ago
> how many murders and rapists are going to go free. How many murderers and rapists are minors? Probably not many.
- dionidium 5y ago
  Unfortunately, quite a lot. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-in-the-us-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-...
  - AJ007 5y ago
    Especially in Chicago where an astounding number of murders go unsolved, most of which are gang related. While higher for whites, for African American victims, The close rate was near 20%, something most Americans may associate with Guatemala or Mexico - https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/10/09/768552458/chicago-s-dismal-murder-solve-rate-even-worse-when-victims-are-black https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/10/09/768552458/chicago-s... Based on arrest histories of gang members and failures to prosecute even closed cases, one should assume that there are a large number of serial killers operating in Chicago, many of who started as minors. While most middle and upper class Americans dismiss this as just gang members killing each other, so it’s no big deal, this clearly would not be tolerated in a largely white suburban setting, gang associated or otherwise.
    - rovolo 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Simulacra 5y ago

Police are allowed to lie to you [0] and it's been a staple of police investigations and interrogations ever since. In reading this article I'm horrified that police were ever allowed to lie to children. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp

kwhitefoot 5y ago
> Police are allowed to lie to you Not everywhere. The UK hasn't allowed police to lie when interviewing suspects since the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, known as PACE. It would be a good idea if countries (not just the US and not just in policing) were to look for best practice outside their own borders occasionally.
- vkou 5y ago
  The UK also considers remaining silent during an interrogation or trial to be an indication of guilt.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Is that strictly the case? I thought it was more like "if you remain silent initially that can be used against you if you later try to make statements in your defense"
    - vkou 5y ago
      My understanding is that it's both. If you bring up an alibi during trial, but never mentioned it during interrogation, it is an indication of guilt. If you don't say anything at all during either trial, or interrogation, it is also an indication of guilt.
      - foldr 5y ago
        I'm not sure how much difference it makes in practice. It's the jury that decide. A jury in the US might equally be suspicious of an alibi that the defendant didn't mention until late in the process. Also, it's not really true that merely remaining silent is taken to be an indication of guilt. The point is that an adverse inference may be drawn from silence in basically the same way that an adverse inference may be drawn from a statement made to police. The prosecution can't just say "the defendant said nothing when questioned and is therefore guilty".

cal5k 5y ago

There seems to be a lot of ignorance in this thread about interrogation techniques. The Toronto van killer interrogation is really instructive as to how the best interrogators conduct themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHgtSy41VM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyHgtSy41VM The suspect is repeatedly reminded of his right to counsel, given water, asked if he is hungry, etc. The intent here is to firmly establish that the suspect's rights have been respected - key to making sure the interrogation tapes are admissible in court. The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. By the end of the two-hours-and-change video, Minassian has opened up and produced a confession so good that his defence counsel could only try to argue that he wasn't of sound mind. Not all interrogators are this skilled - this was a very high-profile case, so the Toronto Police deployed their best - but it seems obvious that better training rather than banning useful techniques would result in more favourable outcomes. There is still the issue of innocent people getting caught up in the system or admitting to crimes they didn't commit, but I'd suggest that there are better approaches like, once again, education of the public. You might be uncomfortable and scared for some period of time, but you do not have to talk to the police.

lostapathy 5y ago
> The interrogator then proceeds to tell a series of lies about his background and interests to build rapport with the suspect - he's clearly done his research beforehand to understand which buttons he needs to push. I feel like there's a fundamental difference between an interrogator lying about his own back story to build rapport and them lying about other evidence, witnesses or their authority to make a deal, etc.
- 55555 5y ago
  From what I've seen in the USA they normally lie about evidence and witnesses but they are careful to never lie explicitly about making a deal. That can apparently screw up the entire case, I think because of a supreme court decision.
- 5y ago

autokad 5y ago

> "What's the advantage to society of allowing interviewers to lie (to anyone, let alone kids)?" no one would ever get convicted if police didn't lie. If no one can ever get convicted, either we can murder rape and steal without consequence or we'd have to live in an absolute monitored police state. I think its beneficial they can lie. the real world isn't a SVU episode on TV with DNA, high resolution video, and witnesses. I don't know the percentage, but the vast majority of crime has and never will have evidence other than a witness or a confession. Also saying they can't lie is not easy, as you need an oracle of truth. So if something untruthful is said, does that mean they have to be let go? you mistake the date and they can go free? its impossible to police truth.

FireBeyond 5y ago
Now you sound like a DA, tough on crime. "No one would ever get convicted" - this is about people falsely confessing to crimes because of police lies. But I notice that in your statement, it's all about the conviction, not about the guilt.
- autokad 5y ago
  No that was just in your head.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lhorie 5y ago

On a more basic level, how is the context of the conversation less relevant than the exact wording of any given uttered sentence? IMHO, if a judge hears "well he told me to lie so I did", the whole interrogation ought to be thrown out as ineligible. I ran into a similar situation once: an officer wanted to hear a very specific thing from me, so he asked me a question, then interrupted me mid-sentence when he heard the substring he wanted (the full sentence was along the lines of "we were planning on doing X, but not for another 5 years", where the point of contention was whether they could prove whether I was planning on doing X immediately), never mind that I was explicitly explaining how his theory was all wrong. Thankfully for me, this was with the Canada Border agency, which has an appeals process, and surely enough, when they read my side of the story, they overruled the officer in my favor.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> IMHO, if a judge hears "well he told me to lie so I did", the whole interrogation ought to be thrown out as ineligible. So, the defendant saying those magic words should automatically erase any statements the defendant made, whether or not the magic words are true? Or should perhaps, both the claim of inducement and the other statements remain in evidence, with the trier of fact deciding on the weight to give each?
- lhorie 5y ago
  IANAL but my understanding is that there are specific criteria for what is admissible and what isn't. For example, there are very specific heuristics for determining whether something is hearsay. What I'm saying is that there should be a clear cut list of criteria regarding which circumstances are admissible (e.g. was the confession made freely or was there coercion/promises/negotiations/etc involved, was the conversation recorded/unadulterated, etc) and that this list should be properly followed to disqualify potential foul play, just as is done w/ hearsay.

voodootrucker 5y ago

I'm surprised (according to ctrl-f) no one has brought up Parallel Construction [1] I'm not sure what the benefit to society is, as you asked, but the benefit for law enforcement is that they can escape the intent of 4th amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

55555 5y ago

Oh boy, I don't think you've seen many interrogations. I've spent the past two weeks watching JCS - Criminal Psychology on YouTube. Lies are clearly a core part of interrogations. I haven't ever seen one where lying wasn't a core part of the strategy of the interrogator. Go watch some videos on that channel. It's really, really interesting. Never talk to the police.

wolfram74 5y ago
my read on GP is them not asking "is this common", but "why do we tolerate this being common".
cwkoss 5y ago
Are you saying lying is necessary or just that it's pervasive?

kwyjibo1230 5y ago

It seems to me like there's two main kinds of lies that interrogators use: 1. Lies about the process / promissary lies. e.g. "If you just confess, you can go home." 2. Lies about evidence. e.g. "We talked to {Friend|Family|Co-conspirator} and they said you did it and they have the {item} to prove it. It's not going to look good if you continue to lie to me." #1 seems obviously bad to me. Too high of a risk of tricking innocent people into thinking they can end the stress by falsely confessing. #2 seems less bad, possibly beneficial. There are other comments about how this can speed up interrogations by getting people who are guilty to think they've been caught and confess. I could be convinced otherwise. In my opinion, sounds like 1 and 2 should be illegal for minors. But 1 should be illegal in general, for adults too.

Jiro 5y ago
An innocent person who hears #2 may reason that the police are faking evidence, they'd better give a fake confession because otherwise the police will just use the faked evidence in court. He may not be up to date on the laws about exactly at what steps in the process the police are allowed to use the fake evidence. Alternatively, he might think that his friend actually implicated him and that he has the choice of saying nothing and being convicted because of that, or confessing to a lesser charge. Alternately, he might just think that police who'd fake evidence are corrupt, and that corrupt police could do a lot worse, like fake evidence against his whole family or just shoot him, so he'd better confess just to come out of this alive.
- kwyjibo1230 5y ago
  Fair points. This is going to be especially unfair to people who do not speak English or have familiarity with US laws.

vkou 5y ago

The advantage is that a criminal confessing to their crimes is better for everyone else. Most people would rather see criminals not doing crime. This is so obvious, it's not clear why this has to be spelled out. The purpose of civil rights like the fifth amendment is not making life easy for criminals, the purpose is protecting innocent people. You can argue that the harm inflicted by some particular procedure to innocent people exceeds the benefits, but that becomes a utilitarian debate, rather than one about philosophical dogma.

erdos4d 5y ago

US society is designed so that a significant percentage of people will live in cages, far more than any other society on Earth currently. I guess this helps make that happen? I personally don't think this is right or beneficial, but it's something the US works very hard to accomplish and seems incapable of dialing back.

totalZero 5y ago

If interrogators can't lie then interrogated individuals can distill information about police investigations from their comments. I don't believe in misleading people about the law itself, but I cannot deny that there is power in the insinuation that you have more evidence than you actually have.

shadowfox 5y ago
> there is power in the insinuation that you have more evidence than you actually have This is true and there is power in all manners of things, including very abusive, immoral and possibly illegal things; there is a lot of power in threatening physical (or psychological) violence to people, for example. I guess the question is about which usage of power we should (ideally) endorse as a society as a matter of course .

codegeek 5y ago

In case people are not aware yet, please watch this video about "Don't talk to the police". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=1s

gjvnq 5y ago

This is one of the times I think Brazil manages to beat up the USA: we do not accept confessions unless they are confirmed in front of a judge. (Chapter V of the Brazilian Penal Process Code) Also, if you report yourself before the authorities know that the crime took place, you get an automatic reduction in your sentence (article 65 inciso II item b of the Brazilian Penal Code)