4 ms·

Why is lying acceptable?

by crooked-v 2y ago

RiverCrochet 2y ago
Lying is wrong, but murder is wronger.
- evanfarrar 2y ago
  great, if you can figure out how to lie to only murderers we wouldn’t even need police to investigate
  - adastra22 2y ago
    He was talking about the dog.
    - exe34 2y ago
      the dog didn't lie
      - mike978 2y ago
        occasionally when it was told "down".
- rjmill 2y ago
  And killing a dog is wrongest.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The police do both. So are they wrongest?
tomcam 2y ago
Because it’s legitimate in some cases. Obvious example is when you have an accomplice to a kidnapping in custody and time is limited. Less convincingly, when you separate a group of suspects and claim that Kyle gave you up when he did nothing of the sort.
- ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
  No it isn't. People have imperfect memory, and if the police can knowingly lie to you, then they can also convince you to admit something which never happened, effectively coercing you to fabricate evidence against yourself. Yes, it may lead to some bad guys getting caught who otherwise wouldn't have been. But that is not an excuse if it also compromises the rule of law for innocent people.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  Yes, great, so if neither of you were actually involved in the crime and they tell you that the other guy gave you up, you can fabricate something that implicates him instead so they take the rap because you’re scared of being blamed. This isn’t a hypothetical, people have literally gone to prison for decades before some new DNA evidence exonerates them and the ‘accomplice’ admits they lied…
  - d1sxeyes 2y ago
    The vast majority of folks who get cleared based on “new DNA evidence” or whatever actually don’t have their innocence proven. Instead in most of these cases, there is shown to be some problem with a piece of evidence relied on at trial. To be clear, the prosecutors should be held to a high standard, and they should be forced to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we should also be a little more cautious about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic. In case that evidence had been excluded on time, it is possible that the prosecutors could still have built a solid case that relied on different evidence.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      > about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic That's literally how innocence works though. From the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial ...". If they weren't proven guilty they are presumed innocent.
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]
sandworm101 2y ago
[flagged]
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Sure, but just asking you is different than lying to you, such as claiming the radar gun clocked you at 98, subject to something like reckless driving, when it was actually only 82, a speeding ticket.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > Being totally open and honest with suspects gives them control over the situation, at least to the guilty suspects who by definition know more than the police ever can. This fails to account for innocent suspects, who are already having a bad day and are all too often convicted despite their innocence. The police not knowing means that they should be careful, not reckless. You cannot presume guilt in order to justify lying or psychological torture. > Ever wonder why cops ask you how fast you were going before they pulled you over? Its because they are unsure and want you to admit your mistake. It is trickery but not evil. It’s also not lying.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=InA4SmSlObw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=InA4SmSlObw

Why is lying acceptable?

RiverCrochet 2y ago

Lying is wrong, but murder is wronger.

evanfarrar 2y ago
great, if you can figure out how to lie to only murderers we wouldn’t even need police to investigate
- adastra22 2y ago
  He was talking about the dog.
  - exe34 2y ago
    the dog didn't lie
    - mike978 2y ago
      occasionally when it was told "down".
rjmill 2y ago
And killing a dog is wrongest.
llm_trw 2y ago
The police do both. So are they wrongest?

tomcam 2y ago

Because it’s legitimate in some cases. Obvious example is when you have an accomplice to a kidnapping in custody and time is limited. Less convincingly, when you separate a group of suspects and claim that Kyle gave you up when he did nothing of the sort.

ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
No it isn't. People have imperfect memory, and if the police can knowingly lie to you, then they can also convince you to admit something which never happened, effectively coercing you to fabricate evidence against yourself. Yes, it may lead to some bad guys getting caught who otherwise wouldn't have been. But that is not an excuse if it also compromises the rule of law for innocent people.
stephen_g 2y ago
Yes, great, so if neither of you were actually involved in the crime and they tell you that the other guy gave you up, you can fabricate something that implicates him instead so they take the rap because you’re scared of being blamed. This isn’t a hypothetical, people have literally gone to prison for decades before some new DNA evidence exonerates them and the ‘accomplice’ admits they lied…
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  The vast majority of folks who get cleared based on “new DNA evidence” or whatever actually don’t have their innocence proven. Instead in most of these cases, there is shown to be some problem with a piece of evidence relied on at trial. To be clear, the prosecutors should be held to a high standard, and they should be forced to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we should also be a little more cautious about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic. In case that evidence had been excluded on time, it is possible that the prosecutors could still have built a solid case that relied on different evidence.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    > about proclaiming the “innocence” of people whose guilty convictions are found to be problematic That's literally how innocence works though. From the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial ...". If they weren't proven guilty they are presumed innocent.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago

[dead]

sandworm101 2y ago

[flagged]

listenallyall 2y ago
Sure, but just asking you is different than lying to you, such as claiming the radar gun clocked you at 98, subject to something like reckless driving, when it was actually only 82, a speeding ticket.
kergonath 2y ago
> Being totally open and honest with suspects gives them control over the situation, at least to the guilty suspects who by definition know more than the police ever can. This fails to account for innocent suspects, who are already having a bad day and are all too often convicted despite their innocence. The police not knowing means that they should be careful, not reckless. You cannot presume guilt in order to justify lying or psychological torture. > Ever wonder why cops ask you how fast you were going before they pulled you over? Its because they are unsure and want you to admit your mistake. It is trickery but not evil. It’s also not lying.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=InA4SmSlObw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=InA4SmSlObw