>> unrealistic scenario Not attacking, pointing out other perspectives. You saying it is an unrealistic scenario is what I was arguing against in that not only

>> unrealistic scenario Not attacking, pointing out other perspectives. You saying it is an unrealistic scenario is what I was arguing against in that not only is it realistic, but I have seen it happen. You've made my point once again with your comment: "Please do some research on the methods of taking and verifying confessions." Yes, sure, ideally we should all be informed about the law, but if I happen to not be, and I happen to get arrested, there is no way that I can know that my interrogator is lying and that there are ways around that. Yes, I know lawyers are provided, that doesn't mean that people have my best interest in mind, etc. Like I said, speaking from personal experience of SEEING this happen to people. My point is that you are speaking from a position of "being informed" when not everyone is informed, can get informed, wants to get informed, etc. This is why we have protections, this is why we hire lawyers, because we can't be "informed" about everything. That is besides the fact of my moral disagreement that a professional working for the government should be able to lie to a child so that they confess to a crime and potentially get life in prison (as seen here). I'll leave it there though. Not trying to attack so if it came across that way, sorry.