6 ms·

IMO the point of stopping police from lying shouldnt be to prosecute the police (as perjury is already illegal), but rather, to indemnify the person who was lie

IMO the point of stopping police from lying shouldnt be to prosecute the police (as perjury is already illegal), but rather, to indemnify the person who was lied to for actions they took under false pretenses. So, if the police lie to you and say "we have you on camera at the 7/11" and as a result you say "I dont really recall..maybe I got a soda from there and dont remember?" that second statement shouldnt be used against you if they dont actually have you on camera whereas today that statement would be used to show that you couldve been there (because you said so yourself). This is easy to demonstrate in court and consequently toss out that secondary statement which would otherwise be evidence.

rootusrootus 3y ago
Here's a hot take -- maybe we could just make self-incriminating statements inadmissible altogether unless it's given as testimony, verbal or written and signed while not under duress. If the only evidence the police have is what you say, then that should be insufficient.
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  The case has obviously fallen out of the limelight but Brendan Dassey should be the poster boy for why this is true.
  - chrsig 3y ago
    The counter argument being donald trump, where every other sentence is some admission of guilt.
- psychlops 3y ago
  You mean the only evidence is what the police say you said.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    No, I mean that "suspect said X" testimony wouldn't be admissible, so it would never be your word against the cop.
    - psychlops 3y ago
      Yes, we agree. I was just clarifying that "what you said" can be quite different from "what the police said you said". If it were recorded then that's different....
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      This made me do some research into "hearsay" because I'm not really familiar with how it all works. > Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay#United_States So it's not hearsay if it makes you look bad (but it is if it makes you look good), and police don't even have to be telling the truth, nor do they really have to be worried about perjury charges if a given encounter was not recorded. I still can't imagine why a confession given in interview isn't logically nullified by: "How does the defense plead?" "Not guilty, Your Honor."
      - int_19h 3y ago
        On top of that, statistically, a guilty confession results in a massive bias from the jury, often to the point of completely overriding exculpatory evidence (like, say, witness testimonies of alibi, or forensics).
- morpheos137 3y ago
  In the USA you have the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Also you have NO obligation to say anything to police in an interrogation and can always request an attorney to speak on your behalf. Subjects are reminded of this during the reading of Miranda Rights. If you are ever in a police interrogation you should always decline to speak without an attorney. It is bewildering why people don't exercise their rights.
  - rolph 3y ago
    --"because if you cooperate with us, everything will go easy, if you keep resisting, thats proof of guilt and youll get the max, plus charges for resisting"
  - theturtle32 3y ago
    It's not bewildering. There are an awful lot of people out there who were raised to trust police as "the good guys" and it's extremely easy for those people to be manipulated into what they think will be a quick interview to help out in solving a case, only to have the spotlight turned on them before they realize what's happening.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Because in most places cops are liars beyond what you'd ever believe. Civil rights violations are simply status quo. I come from a family with members in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They have had to kick detectives out of interrogation rooms because the detectives get abusive and simply ignore "I'd like to speak to my attorney". The cops just won't stop harassing, lying, and even abusing the suspect. Most people are not going to do well in a stressful situation with a person in a position of authority abusing them. And our criminal justice system here in the US is ok with that.
  - kjellsbells 3y ago
    Let's try this thought experiment. You are shopping at a grocery store. It's a regular day in your life. Then, without warning, you are arrested by the cops and taken to the police station. They put you in the holding cell. They take your laptop, phone, etc. You ask for your one call. They lead you to the wall mounted phone and you stick your quarter in. What percentage of the HN readership here would be able to dial the number of a competent criminal attorney? Engagement with the criminal justice system is so out of the ordinary for most people that they simply do not know what to do. It's easy to say, "shut up and call your lawyer", but most regular joes have absolutely no idea how to find a lawyer, vet them, engage with them, etc. In normal life, if you need a lawyer, you Google some reviews, or you look up something in yellow pages, or you ask your local state bar association for a referral for the area of legal practice. None of those things are happening at 2am in a holding cell without any of your regular devices. And asking for the public defender is not likely to give you much comfort given their caseload. Now imagine that you are not the classic affluent educated HN reader with access to all kinds of resources, and consider what it must be like for working class people. It's not fun.
echelon 3y ago
> as a result you say "I dont really recall..maybe I got a soda from there and dont remember?" [...] > today that statement would be used to show that you couldve been there (because you said so yourself). They can use "I don't remember" ? Isn't the whole point of interrogation to get a suspect to make conflicting statements, then pressure them when the statements don't line up as a means to get a confession? Why is this a bad thing? If this tool goes away, couldn't conviction rates plummet (for eg. violent crimes)? I'm having trouble seeing an ethical problem here?
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  Do you want confessions or justice?
- JieJie 3y ago
  Blackstone's Ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Which has about zero to do with actual reality. The reality in the US is if you want re-elected you better be tough on crime, which means people going to jail. No one seems to give a shit if the people that committed the crime are going to jail, as long as someone is found guilty.
    - 20after4 3y ago
      No they care. They make sure that the people doing the crimes remain free to abuse the innocent. Hint: it's the police and politicians (and their buddies) committing a lot of the crimes.
- throwaway19091p 3y ago
  > They can use "I don't remember" ? They absolutely can, and will use that in a court of law. Any comment that you make that seems completely fine from your perspective can quickly be turned around to lock you up. I highly recommend checking out this lecture when you get a chance: https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE Police are not generally concerned with getting the right person, they're just concerned with getting a person.

rootusrootus 3y ago

Here's a hot take -- maybe we could just make self-incriminating statements inadmissible altogether unless it's given as testimony, verbal or written and signed while not under duress. If the only evidence the police have is what you say, then that should be insufficient.

VBprogrammer 3y ago
The case has obviously fallen out of the limelight but Brendan Dassey should be the poster boy for why this is true.
- chrsig 3y ago
  The counter argument being donald trump, where every other sentence is some admission of guilt.
psychlops 3y ago
You mean the only evidence is what the police say you said.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  No, I mean that "suspect said X" testimony wouldn't be admissible, so it would never be your word against the cop.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Yes, we agree. I was just clarifying that "what you said" can be quite different from "what the police said you said". If it were recorded then that's different....
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    This made me do some research into "hearsay" because I'm not really familiar with how it all works. > Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay#United_States So it's not hearsay if it makes you look bad (but it is if it makes you look good), and police don't even have to be telling the truth, nor do they really have to be worried about perjury charges if a given encounter was not recorded. I still can't imagine why a confession given in interview isn't logically nullified by: "How does the defense plead?" "Not guilty, Your Honor."
    - int_19h 3y ago
      On top of that, statistically, a guilty confession results in a massive bias from the jury, often to the point of completely overriding exculpatory evidence (like, say, witness testimonies of alibi, or forensics).
morpheos137 3y ago
In the USA you have the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Also you have NO obligation to say anything to police in an interrogation and can always request an attorney to speak on your behalf. Subjects are reminded of this during the reading of Miranda Rights. If you are ever in a police interrogation you should always decline to speak without an attorney. It is bewildering why people don't exercise their rights.
- rolph 3y ago
  --"because if you cooperate with us, everything will go easy, if you keep resisting, thats proof of guilt and youll get the max, plus charges for resisting"
- theturtle32 3y ago
  It's not bewildering. There are an awful lot of people out there who were raised to trust police as "the good guys" and it's extremely easy for those people to be manipulated into what they think will be a quick interview to help out in solving a case, only to have the spotlight turned on them before they realize what's happening.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Because in most places cops are liars beyond what you'd ever believe. Civil rights violations are simply status quo. I come from a family with members in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They have had to kick detectives out of interrogation rooms because the detectives get abusive and simply ignore "I'd like to speak to my attorney". The cops just won't stop harassing, lying, and even abusing the suspect. Most people are not going to do well in a stressful situation with a person in a position of authority abusing them. And our criminal justice system here in the US is ok with that.
- kjellsbells 3y ago
  Let's try this thought experiment. You are shopping at a grocery store. It's a regular day in your life. Then, without warning, you are arrested by the cops and taken to the police station. They put you in the holding cell. They take your laptop, phone, etc. You ask for your one call. They lead you to the wall mounted phone and you stick your quarter in. What percentage of the HN readership here would be able to dial the number of a competent criminal attorney? Engagement with the criminal justice system is so out of the ordinary for most people that they simply do not know what to do. It's easy to say, "shut up and call your lawyer", but most regular joes have absolutely no idea how to find a lawyer, vet them, engage with them, etc. In normal life, if you need a lawyer, you Google some reviews, or you look up something in yellow pages, or you ask your local state bar association for a referral for the area of legal practice. None of those things are happening at 2am in a holding cell without any of your regular devices. And asking for the public defender is not likely to give you much comfort given their caseload. Now imagine that you are not the classic affluent educated HN reader with access to all kinds of resources, and consider what it must be like for working class people. It's not fun.

echelon 3y ago

> as a result you say "I dont really recall..maybe I got a soda from there and dont remember?" [...] > today that statement would be used to show that you couldve been there (because you said so yourself). They can use "I don't remember" ? Isn't the whole point of interrogation to get a suspect to make conflicting statements, then pressure them when the statements don't line up as a means to get a confession? Why is this a bad thing? If this tool goes away, couldn't conviction rates plummet (for eg. violent crimes)? I'm having trouble seeing an ethical problem here?

AniseAbyss 3y ago
Do you want confessions or justice?
JieJie 3y ago
Blackstone's Ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio
- pixl97 3y ago
  Which has about zero to do with actual reality. The reality in the US is if you want re-elected you better be tough on crime, which means people going to jail. No one seems to give a shit if the people that committed the crime are going to jail, as long as someone is found guilty.
  - 20after4 3y ago
    No they care. They make sure that the people doing the crimes remain free to abuse the innocent. Hint: it's the police and politicians (and their buddies) committing a lot of the crimes.
throwaway19091p 3y ago
> They can use "I don't remember" ? They absolutely can, and will use that in a court of law. Any comment that you make that seems completely fine from your perspective can quickly be turned around to lock you up. I highly recommend checking out this lecture when you get a chance: https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE Police are not generally concerned with getting the right person, they're just concerned with getting a person.