3 ms·

That's why confession obtained in unrestricted police interrogation can't be the only part of justice process. There first has to be evidence to detain and inte

That's why confession obtained in unrestricted police interrogation can't be the only part of justice process. There first has to be evidence to detain and interrogate someone in the first place. The suspect must be informed of the right to remain silent and consequences of saying anything, and given an option to consult with a lawyer. Judges and juries should demand that collaborating evidence is presented to show that confession confirmed aspects of the crime that were not publicly known. If someone is well aware that they will end up in prison if they "remember" something from teenager years and that they don't have to say anything / are free to go, they will be much less likely to play along vs a student who knows they are part of a study with no real life consequences.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
> There first has to be evidence to detain and interrogate someone in the first place. No there isn’t. The cops can just claim you were in the are- even if you weren’t. And no, “asleep in my bed because the crime happened at 3 am” happens to not be an alibi. > Judges and juries should demand that corroborating evidence is presented to show that confession confirmed aspects of the crime that were not publicly known. It’s actually possible to coerce someone into confessing with details not even they know of, with the police nudging them towards details of the case not publicly known. “No, you’re lying about killing him with handgun, it’s not a nicer way to kill someone’s than how you actually did it, you wanted to get up close and personal didn’t you”. > If someone is well aware that they will end up in prison if they "remember" something from teenager years and that they don't have to say anything / are free to go, they will be much less likely to play along vs a student who knows they are part of a study with no real life consequences. Okay, but a student also isn’t being held and gaslit well into the night with no sleep, food, or water, constantly told “if you just cooperate we can help you” (a complete lie) by the cops.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If there was the political will for it, nothing about our legal system makes it impossible to prohibit admitting confessions as evidence in court. We could just say "those are never evidence, the prosecution isn't allowed to introduce them or even hint that they have occurred". Police could still use them as a lead, to track down real evidence. If the culprit claims to have disposed of the murder weapon and they discover the weapon where he said it was, that's real evidence. But more generally, eyewitness testimony itself (of which confessions are just a special variant of) should be inadmissible. Professionals giving professional testimony from notes and reports they have compiled should be the whole of it.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

> There first has to be evidence to detain and interrogate someone in the first place. No there isn’t. The cops can just claim you were in the are- even if you weren’t. And no, “asleep in my bed because the crime happened at 3 am” happens to not be an alibi. > Judges and juries should demand that corroborating evidence is presented to show that confession confirmed aspects of the crime that were not publicly known. It’s actually possible to coerce someone into confessing with details not even they know of, with the police nudging them towards details of the case not publicly known. “No, you’re lying about killing him with handgun, it’s not a nicer way to kill someone’s than how you actually did it, you wanted to get up close and personal didn’t you”. > If someone is well aware that they will end up in prison if they "remember" something from teenager years and that they don't have to say anything / are free to go, they will be much less likely to play along vs a student who knows they are part of a study with no real life consequences. Okay, but a student also isn’t being held and gaslit well into the night with no sleep, food, or water, constantly told “if you just cooperate we can help you” (a complete lie) by the cops.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

If there was the political will for it, nothing about our legal system makes it impossible to prohibit admitting confessions as evidence in court. We could just say "those are never evidence, the prosecution isn't allowed to introduce them or even hint that they have occurred". Police could still use them as a lead, to track down real evidence. If the culprit claims to have disposed of the murder weapon and they discover the weapon where he said it was, that's real evidence. But more generally, eyewitness testimony itself (of which confessions are just a special variant of) should be inadmissible. Professionals giving professional testimony from notes and reports they have compiled should be the whole of it.