3 ms·

"If the detectives make any kind of promises or threats then your lawyer will be able to suppress the entire interview." If you can prove it. This is often the

"If the detectives make any kind of promises or threats then your lawyer will be able to suppress the entire interview." If you can prove it. This is often the tricky part.

zaphar 2y ago
If it's already illegal but difficult to prove then making it "even more" illegal isn't going to help.
- hedora 2y ago
  I bet it would be a lot less common if evidence that it happened meant the end of the officer’s career, loss of pension, and 10 years in prison (general population, preferably with a public announcement of why they are serving time). On top of that, they could add some sort of chain of custody for the accused. For instance gaps in the recording between arrest and trial (solo bathroom breaks and conferring with defense attorneys excepted) could mean the charges are dropped.
  - zaphar 2y ago
    If it's hard to obtain or provide evidence, increasing the consequences isn't goint to be a deterrent. You have to make it easier to prove. Which means you either need to: * Lower the standard for proof * Make it harder to to avoid public scrutiny for covered interactions
- pyuser583 2y ago
  Clear and simple rules help a lot. If you say “I want to talk to a lawyer” - anything after that is not admissible. Full stop. This is generally enforced. Same with Miranda warnings. The problem is clear rules tend to be a bit arbitrary. Can you change the wording on a Miranda warning a bit? Why that specific wording? So instead we have very unclear, but more constitutionally rigorous rules.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Hold up, who said anything about merely increasing the punishment for already-illegal acts? It's a significant difference when those acts become impractical, because you can't spout all the other smaller lies which are needed to shock and scare the victim into a state where they'll fall for the big ones.
  - zaphar 2y ago
    If you can spout the big lies you can spout the small lies. The size of the lie has no impact. Preventing the lies in the first place regardless of size requires that you can 1. provide evidence of those lies. 2. create consequences for spouting the lies
DannyBee 2y ago
This kind of interrogation is held at a police station. They are recorded - a lot of countries outside the US actually require it be recorded and if it is not, the interview and anything said in it are simply inadmissible. Even in the US, recording is standard practice for any meaningful felony. Unlike body worn cameras, it does not get magically lost, and when it does, the interview is generally not admitted, or a defense lawyer tears it to shreds if the detective tries to use his notes. While there are always cases of recordings "being lost" or whatever, the rate here is very low, compared to body worn cameras or anything else. The case where they don't do recording is usually resource related. There are around 20,000 law enforcement agencies in the US. 80% of them have less than 25 full time employees 15% of those have 1 full time employee. While most still do recording, it might only be for major felonies or whatever because they don't have the manpower to have handle recording 24/7. Given that, you won't achieve 100% compliance without something drastic (for example, funding and paying for 24/7 video recording in every department). Even there, at best you'll just end up with only the cases where software/hardware went wrong. Note that i have no love for police (actually, much the opposite), but i'm also realistic - i'm not sure it's easy to solve the problem of having tons of small, low-budget police departments, be required to record. (the UK, by comparison, has 43 regional law enforcement forces, and is down to 300 police stations or something like this)
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  In the USA our courts have something called 'Good Faith'. They take the word of law enforcement on 'Good faith' because they are official officers of the law. Chain of custody broken on your evidence? Well, the court will take it on 'good faith' that the police department still did things right, because otherwise they would have to throw out the case, and in the USA there is nothing worse than that. Video evidence that conflict with officer testimony? Most times the court with side with 'good faith' in the officer's testimony. Go look up 'good faith' in Lexus/Nexus and read some crazy court cases.
- giantg2 2y ago
  There are plenty of areas of the police station that do not have recorded audio. Yes, the official interview would/should, but that doesn't mean they didn't start off the record in another area.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Not talking to them wihthout your lawyer is a start.

"If the detectives make any kind of promises or threats then your lawyer will be able to suppress the entire interview." If you can prove it. This is often the tricky part.

zaphar 2y ago

If it's already illegal but difficult to prove then making it "even more" illegal isn't going to help.

hedora 2y ago
I bet it would be a lot less common if evidence that it happened meant the end of the officer’s career, loss of pension, and 10 years in prison (general population, preferably with a public announcement of why they are serving time). On top of that, they could add some sort of chain of custody for the accused. For instance gaps in the recording between arrest and trial (solo bathroom breaks and conferring with defense attorneys excepted) could mean the charges are dropped.
- zaphar 2y ago
  If it's hard to obtain or provide evidence, increasing the consequences isn't goint to be a deterrent. You have to make it easier to prove. Which means you either need to: * Lower the standard for proof * Make it harder to to avoid public scrutiny for covered interactions
pyuser583 2y ago
Clear and simple rules help a lot. If you say “I want to talk to a lawyer” - anything after that is not admissible. Full stop. This is generally enforced. Same with Miranda warnings. The problem is clear rules tend to be a bit arbitrary. Can you change the wording on a Miranda warning a bit? Why that specific wording? So instead we have very unclear, but more constitutionally rigorous rules.
Terr_ 2y ago
Hold up, who said anything about merely increasing the punishment for already-illegal acts? It's a significant difference when those acts become impractical, because you can't spout all the other smaller lies which are needed to shock and scare the victim into a state where they'll fall for the big ones.
- zaphar 2y ago
  If you can spout the big lies you can spout the small lies. The size of the lie has no impact. Preventing the lies in the first place regardless of size requires that you can 1. provide evidence of those lies. 2. create consequences for spouting the lies

DannyBee 2y ago

This kind of interrogation is held at a police station. They are recorded - a lot of countries outside the US actually require it be recorded and if it is not, the interview and anything said in it are simply inadmissible. Even in the US, recording is standard practice for any meaningful felony. Unlike body worn cameras, it does not get magically lost, and when it does, the interview is generally not admitted, or a defense lawyer tears it to shreds if the detective tries to use his notes. While there are always cases of recordings "being lost" or whatever, the rate here is very low, compared to body worn cameras or anything else. The case where they don't do recording is usually resource related. There are around 20,000 law enforcement agencies in the US. 80% of them have less than 25 full time employees 15% of those have 1 full time employee. While most still do recording, it might only be for major felonies or whatever because they don't have the manpower to have handle recording 24/7. Given that, you won't achieve 100% compliance without something drastic (for example, funding and paying for 24/7 video recording in every department). Even there, at best you'll just end up with only the cases where software/hardware went wrong. Note that i have no love for police (actually, much the opposite), but i'm also realistic - i'm not sure it's easy to solve the problem of having tons of small, low-budget police departments, be required to record. (the UK, by comparison, has 43 regional law enforcement forces, and is down to 300 police stations or something like this)

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
In the USA our courts have something called 'Good Faith'. They take the word of law enforcement on 'Good faith' because they are official officers of the law. Chain of custody broken on your evidence? Well, the court will take it on 'good faith' that the police department still did things right, because otherwise they would have to throw out the case, and in the USA there is nothing worse than that. Video evidence that conflict with officer testimony? Most times the court with side with 'good faith' in the officer's testimony. Go look up 'good faith' in Lexus/Nexus and read some crazy court cases.
giantg2 2y ago
There are plenty of areas of the police station that do not have recorded audio. Yes, the official interview would/should, but that doesn't mean they didn't start off the record in another area.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Not talking to them wihthout your lawyer is a start.