3 ms·

The sentence only has to change a little bit to become true. "If you're found guilty, you could go away for life, but if you confess I'll go to the judge and o

The sentence only has to change a little bit to become true. "If you're found guilty, you could go away for life, but if you confess I'll go to the judge and offer less time" Constitutional protections aren't there for the legal system, they're there for the accused. Make it harder to convict, and maybe it'll get to a point where we realize we can't lock away societal problems, and have to start fixing root causes.

jandrese 3y ago
That's much less impactful though. There's a term of art in interrogation "showing the tools" that is intended to get a person to comply with your wishes. "If you are found guilty" is far less impactful than "We have evidence that you are guilty". The purpose of these interrogations is to secure the conviction, not to discover the truth. Ironically these techniques work better against the innocent than criminals. The criminals know that the cops lie and that simply shutting up is often a sufficient defense. The innocent get bamboozled and end up with jail time.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > The purpose of these interrogations is to secure the conviction, not to discover the truth. People really need to internalize this when it comes to their interactions with the police (and ultimately when it comes to their obligations as voters). After an investigation starts, the police's one and only job is to put someone in prison. Not to solve the case. Not to get to the truth. Not to promote some notion of justice. It's to get a conviction and that's it. Choosing to talk to the police "because I have done nothing wrong" or "because I want to be cooperative" or "because I think they'll go easier on me if I do" are all terrible choices. When they are talking to you they have a single goal: To convict you.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > That's much less impactful though. Sure, that's the point. Less fucking over of innocent people should therefore be less impactful. ;)
  - jandrese 3y ago
    DAs don't get promotions by not convicting people, innocent or not.

jandrese 3y ago

That's much less impactful though. There's a term of art in interrogation "showing the tools" that is intended to get a person to comply with your wishes. "If you are found guilty" is far less impactful than "We have evidence that you are guilty". The purpose of these interrogations is to secure the conviction, not to discover the truth. Ironically these techniques work better against the innocent than criminals. The criminals know that the cops lie and that simply shutting up is often a sufficient defense. The innocent get bamboozled and end up with jail time.

ryandrake 3y ago
> The purpose of these interrogations is to secure the conviction, not to discover the truth. People really need to internalize this when it comes to their interactions with the police (and ultimately when it comes to their obligations as voters). After an investigation starts, the police's one and only job is to put someone in prison. Not to solve the case. Not to get to the truth. Not to promote some notion of justice. It's to get a conviction and that's it. Choosing to talk to the police "because I have done nothing wrong" or "because I want to be cooperative" or "because I think they'll go easier on me if I do" are all terrible choices. When they are talking to you they have a single goal: To convict you.
justinclift 3y ago
> That's much less impactful though. Sure, that's the point. Less fucking over of innocent people should therefore be less impactful. ;)
- jandrese 3y ago
  DAs don't get promotions by not convicting people, innocent or not.