7 ms·

Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations

64 points by amadeuspagel 2y ago

bastardoperator 2y ago
Never talk to police, always ask for a lawyer.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  Does that advice hold true outside of the US?
  - cedilla 2y ago
    It's always a good idea to ask for a lawyer (and to demand that the embassy of your home country gets informed). However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      > In some countries, police might torture you. Yeah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility
      - bilbo0s 2y ago
        True. Police use torture even here in the US.
      - FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
        Also remember outside the US, there's limited to no protection against repeated prosecution. Only 50-ish countries have protections against "double jeopardy" written into their constitutions and there's lots of exclusions. Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        I think these are just slightly different approaches to the same goals of carceral malfeasance. You don't need to try someone more than once if you can torture a confession out of them. You don't need to torture a confession out of someone if you can try them as many times as you want. Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
        cedilla 2y ago
        Italy does have protection from repeated prosecution as a fundamental right (not least due to the directly binding charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    I can't imagine a place where it wouldn't hold true. You may or may not get the lawyer you request but a police interview is never gonna be about anything other than getting you to say something that will get you convicted of one or many crimes.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      Example: in France if you get caught with cannabis and get to the stage where you get into a police interview, it's the police that recommends to the public prosecutor what to do next. Usually the public prosecutor follows the recommendations of the police. So you can end up having no troubles, in exchange of giving them useful information (e.g. to track down the dealer) even if it's incriminating you. It's informal, but it exists. It's a gamble (though there is an official status as well: "repenti")
      - reverendsteveii 2y ago
        That's supposed to be how it works in America as well, but realistically what happens is they overcharge and then leverage your fear about the unreliability of the jury process to get you to confess regardless of guilt. I don't know how to determine whether that's similar with French police but I think you're giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt in assuming that this only works in the most innocent way possible.
  - hluska 2y ago
    As a general rule, research that before you go anywhere. In Canada, for example, suspects have the right not to make any statements. In China, suspects have the right not to answer “irrelevant questions.” It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black. And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      You should stop taking your information from movies and media headlines. You are going to get people in trouble! > I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Why is that? Seems like you're going to get a lot of natives in trouble with that kind of advice. Never heard lawyers saying that in criminal Common Law countries for any minority.
      - hluska 2y ago
        What are you talking about? The last time there were any statistics collected, an indigenous person in my province had a higher chance of completing a stint in a federal penitentiary than of completing an undergraduate degree. That’s what I’m talking about. You could use Google for three minutes instead of being so rude. You should try it.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  One of the classic videos on the subject by Law Professor (and former criminal defense attorney) James Duane, accompanied by a police officer that concurs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE And accompanying paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
  - Diederich 2y ago
    I watch this video at least once a year, and make my immediate family do the same. Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule. As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important. It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you. I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less. Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.
- hluska 2y ago
  My dad was a police officer and I grew up in the age of AIDS hysteria. Without any hyperbole, my dad spent more time/words drilling in how to protect myself from police than from AIDS. Granted, I had about as much sex appeal as a paper bag full of day old vomit so maybe that was more about probability of facing risk than actual risk. :)
- tracker1 2y ago
  And be careful where/when/how you say "OK" in response to any statement from police.
maerF0x0 2y ago
It was a dark realization for me about some of the ways that America is corrupt despite branding/veneer of beautiful things like freedom, prosperity, christianity. IMO A just nation who wanted to live out those^^ values would limit the rights of police (who are not judge or jury), and do the following: 1. Anything said before a lawyer is present is inadmissable 2. The officer's word is not considered superior to the defendent's 3. There are strictly enforced rights police must uphold until you're proven guilty. This includes basic comfort (think food, water, temperature regulation, sleep, access to daylight, contact with support people/friends/family) 4. You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change or if it does then all prior investigation is inadmissable evidence) 5. Police are not allowed to lie, or otherwise be deceptive 6. Police are liable for negative impacts they cause, including loss of work, loss of opportunity, disruptions of family etc. Acquittal should begin the process of recompense for losses. I think in attempts to be "tough on crime" or "back the blue" America has lost it's sense of right and wrong / morality.
- tptacek 2y ago
  There are plenty of things we take for granted in American criminal justice that aren't standard in Europe. For example: you do not necessarily get exclusion of inappropriately obtained evidence, or a right not to incriminate yourself. There's an amazing article about how criminal justice works in France that followed "Anatomy of a Fall" --- just the idea that the prosecutor doesn't literally work for the judge is not a universal idea! What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    In the US inappropriately obtained evidence, failure to follow chain of custody, etc is waived by the judges and allowed under 'good faith' (the court assumes good faith on the police's part even though the police failed to follow the process/rules/law/requirements and therefor the court doesn't enforce compliance requirements). Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.
simonw 2y ago
The thing where the cops are allowed to lie to people in the USA in order to get confessions out of them is so wild to me. There's a section in here about that: "Presentations of False Evidence" "At times, American police will overcome a suspect’s denials by presenting supposedly incontrovertible evidence of guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. [...] In much of the world, police are not permitted to deceive suspects in this way."
- autoexec 2y ago
  Not even just to get a confession. Police can stop you on the street for no reason and lie to your face telling you that you are required to hand over your ID or allow them to search you and if you refuse you'd be committing a crime and will go to jail. If you don't know your rights you can end up giving them permission to violate them. You can't even trust police to tell you when you're doing something illegal.
- rvnx 2y ago
  Canada, Australia, England, Japan...
highpost 2y ago
It's STFU Friday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EI_RYIEtrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EI_RYIEtrg
josefritzishere 2y ago
1. Remain calm. do not escalate the encouter. Police are often violent, and are substance abusers. Being right will not keep you alive. 2. You have the right to remain silent, use it. 3. You have a right to a lawyer, use it. 4. You have the right to refuse searches. Tell them “I do not consent to searches” it may nto stop them but it helps your case. 5. Understand that police cany legally lie to you. See #2 6. Ask if you are free to go or it you are being detained. 7. Record the encounter or take notes. You might need that later. 8. Dont let them in your home. Do not even crack the door without a judicial warrant.

64 points by amadeuspagel 2y ago

bastardoperator 2y ago

Never talk to police, always ask for a lawyer.

jimbob45 2y ago
Does that advice hold true outside of the US?
- cedilla 2y ago
  It's always a good idea to ask for a lawyer (and to demand that the embassy of your home country gets informed). However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    > In some countries, police might torture you. Yeah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      True. Police use torture even here in the US.
    - FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
      Also remember outside the US, there's limited to no protection against repeated prosecution. Only 50-ish countries have protections against "double jeopardy" written into their constitutions and there's lots of exclusions. Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        I think these are just slightly different approaches to the same goals of carceral malfeasance. You don't need to try someone more than once if you can torture a confession out of them. You don't need to torture a confession out of someone if you can try them as many times as you want. Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
      - cedilla 2y ago
        Italy does have protection from repeated prosecution as a fundamental right (not least due to the directly binding charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  I can't imagine a place where it wouldn't hold true. You may or may not get the lawyer you request but a police interview is never gonna be about anything other than getting you to say something that will get you convicted of one or many crimes.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Example: in France if you get caught with cannabis and get to the stage where you get into a police interview, it's the police that recommends to the public prosecutor what to do next. Usually the public prosecutor follows the recommendations of the police. So you can end up having no troubles, in exchange of giving them useful information (e.g. to track down the dealer) even if it's incriminating you. It's informal, but it exists. It's a gamble (though there is an official status as well: "repenti")
    - reverendsteveii 2y ago
      That's supposed to be how it works in America as well, but realistically what happens is they overcharge and then leverage your fear about the unreliability of the jury process to get you to confess regardless of guilt. I don't know how to determine whether that's similar with French police but I think you're giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt in assuming that this only works in the most innocent way possible.
- hluska 2y ago
  As a general rule, research that before you go anywhere. In Canada, for example, suspects have the right not to make any statements. In China, suspects have the right not to answer “irrelevant questions.” It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black. And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    You should stop taking your information from movies and media headlines. You are going to get people in trouble! > I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Why is that? Seems like you're going to get a lot of natives in trouble with that kind of advice. Never heard lawyers saying that in criminal Common Law countries for any minority.
    - hluska 2y ago
      What are you talking about? The last time there were any statistics collected, an indigenous person in my province had a higher chance of completing a stint in a federal penitentiary than of completing an undergraduate degree. That’s what I’m talking about. You could use Google for three minutes instead of being so rude. You should try it.
ziddoap 2y ago
One of the classic videos on the subject by Law Professor (and former criminal defense attorney) James Duane, accompanied by a police officer that concurs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE And accompanying paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
- Diederich 2y ago
  I watch this video at least once a year, and make my immediate family do the same. Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule. As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important. It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you. I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less. Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.
hluska 2y ago
My dad was a police officer and I grew up in the age of AIDS hysteria. Without any hyperbole, my dad spent more time/words drilling in how to protect myself from police than from AIDS. Granted, I had about as much sex appeal as a paper bag full of day old vomit so maybe that was more about probability of facing risk than actual risk. :)
tracker1 2y ago
And be careful where/when/how you say "OK" in response to any statement from police.

maerF0x0 2y ago

It was a dark realization for me about some of the ways that America is corrupt despite branding/veneer of beautiful things like freedom, prosperity, christianity. IMO A just nation who wanted to live out those^^ values would limit the rights of police (who are not judge or jury), and do the following: 1. Anything said before a lawyer is present is inadmissable 2. The officer's word is not considered superior to the defendent's 3. There are strictly enforced rights police must uphold until you're proven guilty. This includes basic comfort (think food, water, temperature regulation, sleep, access to daylight, contact with support people/friends/family) 4. You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change or if it does then all prior investigation is inadmissable evidence) 5. Police are not allowed to lie, or otherwise be deceptive 6. Police are liable for negative impacts they cause, including loss of work, loss of opportunity, disruptions of family etc. Acquittal should begin the process of recompense for losses. I think in attempts to be "tough on crime" or "back the blue" America has lost it's sense of right and wrong / morality.

tptacek 2y ago
There are plenty of things we take for granted in American criminal justice that aren't standard in Europe. For example: you do not necessarily get exclusion of inappropriately obtained evidence, or a right not to incriminate yourself. There's an amazing article about how criminal justice works in France that followed "Anatomy of a Fall" --- just the idea that the prosecutor doesn't literally work for the judge is not a universal idea! What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  In the US inappropriately obtained evidence, failure to follow chain of custody, etc is waived by the judges and allowed under 'good faith' (the court assumes good faith on the police's part even though the police failed to follow the process/rules/law/requirements and therefor the court doesn't enforce compliance requirements). Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.

simonw 2y ago

The thing where the cops are allowed to lie to people in the USA in order to get confessions out of them is so wild to me. There's a section in here about that: "Presentations of False Evidence" "At times, American police will overcome a suspect’s denials by presenting supposedly incontrovertible evidence of guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. [...] In much of the world, police are not permitted to deceive suspects in this way."

autoexec 2y ago
Not even just to get a confession. Police can stop you on the street for no reason and lie to your face telling you that you are required to hand over your ID or allow them to search you and if you refuse you'd be committing a crime and will go to jail. If you don't know your rights you can end up giving them permission to violate them. You can't even trust police to tell you when you're doing something illegal.
rvnx 2y ago
Canada, Australia, England, Japan...

highpost 2y ago

It's STFU Friday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EI_RYIEtrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EI_RYIEtrg

josefritzishere 2y ago

1. Remain calm. do not escalate the encouter. Police are often violent, and are substance abusers. Being right will not keep you alive. 2. You have the right to remain silent, use it. 3. You have a right to a lawyer, use it. 4. You have the right to refuse searches. Tell them “I do not consent to searches” it may nto stop them but it helps your case. 5. Understand that police cany legally lie to you. See #2 6. Ask if you are free to go or it you are being detained. 7. Record the encounter or take notes. You might need that later. 8. Dont let them in your home. Do not even crack the door without a judicial warrant.