4 ms·

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you please expand on your statement? It reads, to me, that you're saying that if police don't lie, then civil society

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you please expand on your statement? It reads, to me, that you're saying that if police don't lie, then civil society can break down? Alternate reading is that the cops can kill you? I'm very confused by your statements.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> if police don't lie, then civil society can break down Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma. In other cases, the cop may say something they thought was true but isn’t. Disentangling this admits the Fifth Amendment heavily tilts the table for the suspect. > Alternate reading is that the cops can kill you? Murder, in general, is illegal. Lying, in general, is not.
- hollerith 2y ago
  Lying in order to get a financial benefit is called fraud and of course is generally illegal.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    If lying to gain some financial benefit was illegal, the close to trillion dollar advertising industry wouldn't exist.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Ah, but that is ‘mere puffery’. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery] It’s the difference between saying ‘I’ve got the best car ever, it’s amazing!’, and ‘my car has a V8’ when it does not.
      - scotty79 2y ago
        That's how Elon Musk avoided jail so far.
        lazide 2y ago
        Eh, I’d say it’s more the $300 billion net worth personally.
        scotty79 2y ago
        Money is the real reason. Puffery is an official legally sanctioned excuse.
    - ranger_danger 2y ago
      The problem is different people have their own interpretations of the word "lying", including courts and judges.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Lying in order to get a financial benefit is called fraud and of course is generally illegal Sure. They’re not. They’re lying to get coöperation from criminal suspects for no financial gain. Similar but categorically different. Should our diplomats be required to divulge state secrets if asked nicely? Even acknowledge them? This is HN—we’ve been proximate to or even held power, corporate potentially state. Policing is adversarial. No lying outside arrest, sure, but once in custody, the cops should be allowed to lie but not materially mislead you in respect of your rights. Anything else doesn’t work to the point that it gets replaced with popular backing.
    - Loughla 2y ago
      On a completely different note, why did you put the umlaut on cooperation?
      - tedunangst 2y ago
        It's two syllables, not a digraph.
- neilv 2y ago
  > Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma. Why is that legitimate?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Because without them you give every suspect a mens rea out on untrue statements inadvertently said by a cop. Until every cop has a law degree, that’s untenable.
    - neilv 2y ago
      What about a standard somewhere between "any inadvertent false statement of fact blows up everything" and "blatant intentional lying in an official capacity isn't entirely OK"?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > What about a standard somewhere between "any inadvertent false statement of fact blows up everything" and "blatant intentional lying isn't OK"? I’m all ears!
  - lazide 2y ago
    Because it is convenient for society.
coldtea 2y ago
>It reads, to me, that you're saying that if police don't lie, then civil society can break down? He's saying that if police doesn't have some flexibility (like using such tricks to get a suspect to confess), criminals end up getting to roam free, and this, all other things being equal, ends in a way worse society than one where police is allowed to cheat suspects.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> if police don't lie, then civil society can break down Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma. In other cases, the cop may say something they thought was true but isn’t. Disentangling this admits the Fifth Amendment heavily tilts the table for the suspect. > Alternate reading is that the cops can kill you? Murder, in general, is illegal. Lying, in general, is not.

hollerith 2y ago
Lying in order to get a financial benefit is called fraud and of course is generally illegal.
- coldtea 2y ago
  If lying to gain some financial benefit was illegal, the close to trillion dollar advertising industry wouldn't exist.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Ah, but that is ‘mere puffery’. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery] It’s the difference between saying ‘I’ve got the best car ever, it’s amazing!’, and ‘my car has a V8’ when it does not.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      That's how Elon Musk avoided jail so far.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Eh, I’d say it’s more the $300 billion net worth personally.
        scotty79 2y ago
        Money is the real reason. Puffery is an official legally sanctioned excuse.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    The problem is different people have their own interpretations of the word "lying", including courts and judges.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Lying in order to get a financial benefit is called fraud and of course is generally illegal Sure. They’re not. They’re lying to get coöperation from criminal suspects for no financial gain. Similar but categorically different. Should our diplomats be required to divulge state secrets if asked nicely? Even acknowledge them? This is HN—we’ve been proximate to or even held power, corporate potentially state. Policing is adversarial. No lying outside arrest, sure, but once in custody, the cops should be allowed to lie but not materially mislead you in respect of your rights. Anything else doesn’t work to the point that it gets replaced with popular backing.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    On a completely different note, why did you put the umlaut on cooperation?
    - tedunangst 2y ago
      It's two syllables, not a digraph.
neilv 2y ago
> Various legitimate interrogation techniques rely on bluffing, e.g. exploiting the prisoner’s dilemma. Why is that legitimate?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Because without them you give every suspect a mens rea out on untrue statements inadvertently said by a cop. Until every cop has a law degree, that’s untenable.
  - neilv 2y ago
    What about a standard somewhere between "any inadvertent false statement of fact blows up everything" and "blatant intentional lying in an official capacity isn't entirely OK"?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > What about a standard somewhere between "any inadvertent false statement of fact blows up everything" and "blatant intentional lying isn't OK"? I’m all ears!
- lazide 2y ago
  Because it is convenient for society.

coldtea 2y ago

>It reads, to me, that you're saying that if police don't lie, then civil society can break down? He's saying that if police doesn't have some flexibility (like using such tricks to get a suspect to confess), criminals end up getting to roam free, and this, all other things being equal, ends in a way worse society than one where police is allowed to cheat suspects.