5 ms·

Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. (Actually stopping crimes in progress is secondary at best). Falsifying evide

Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. (Actually stopping crimes in progress is secondary at best). Falsifying evidence is the opposite of this job. Not just not doing the job, but doing its inverse. Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.

jlgreco 14y ago
Forget banned, they should be jailed, if not worse. They are undermining the entire legitimacy of the justice system, a cornerstone of our society. There are few worse crimes than undermining our ability to punish crime itself. Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  I suppose it would only be fair that they received the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which they were making the false accusation. Bonus points for allowing the trial to procede untainted and then just transferring the sentence.
  - pasbesoin 14y ago
    There are already laws against perjury, and in many cases, IIRC, it is a felony. Ironic, isn't it, that prosecutors are unwilling to pursue all these potential felony convictions...
    - lutusp 14y ago
      Lawyers tell me that judges rarely prosecute lying under oath, they just rule against the liars. The reason? If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial? He's already accused of that crime, so more lies makes little difference. This is why perjury trials are so rare. Also, "perjury", strictly defined, means testimony that's both material to the issues and leads to a miscarriage of justice. That's a tough standard.
      - rosser 14y ago
        How does the result of committing perjury ("a miscarriage of justice") factor into whether or not it's been committed? AIUI (IANAL), perjury requires three conditions be met: a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3). Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please?
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please? A reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury Point 1 -- materiality: "Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding." Point 2 -- resulting in a miscarriage of justice: "Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice." > a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3). Necessary but not sufficient. One must still meet the materiality and miscarriage of justice tests. And IANAL.
        rosser 14y ago
        Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether its commission results in a miscarriage of justice or not. It describes the elements of the crime as: an oath, an intent, a falsehood, and the materiality of that falsehood. Not to disparage that august institution, but I think something more authoritative than a Wikipedia citation is probably warranted to establish whether the result of an action is necessary for that action to be criminal, instead of the usual Model Penal Code standard of mens rea coupled with actus reus. EDIT: Once again, IANAL. Also, phrasing. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether the commission of perjury results in a miscarriage of justice or not. So it seems. In researching this, I see that the "miscarriage of justice" issue has two effects -- it often determines whether a case of perjury is pursued at all, and it affects the nature of the punishment (the sentencing phase). But it's not part of the formal definition that might lead to a determination of guilt. So I was wrong to state it the way I did earlier. The "miscarriage of justice" issue is important, but it's not part of the definition of perjury -- it only affects whether a case is pursued by a prosecutor, and it may then influence the punishment. Thanks for posting and correcting me.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      The cops work for and with the prosecutors. They're the ones that do investigations, collect evidence, and pick up suspects. That's why prosecutors won't cross them.
- mc32 14y ago
  >Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability. I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times (i.e. realize that sometimes drugged out people or domestic abuser need to be knocked out, for example. I mean that occasionally, there is an ugliness people might not want to admit exists but is necessary.) I think one has to consider the human factor in this and be aware of that when designing policing solutions.
  - jjoonathan 14y ago
    > if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times The silent majority can and does realize this. Proof: http://mashable.com/2013/02/01/reddit-atlanta-mall-manager-taser/ http://mashable.com/2013/02/01/reddit-atlanta-mall-manager-t... I've seen this happen a number of times on reddit. Someone claims police brutality, the thread escalates to the main page, then eventually dies down with the top few posts taking a cool-headed stance. In fact, there have been times when I have found my own opinion on the less moderate side of the hivemind's consensus, and I consider myself fairly trigger-shy when it comes to criticizing the police for doing their job (possibly because I've never been on the wrong side of an arrest). I've heard the claim repeated many times that "democratic oversight" could never work because people, in general, are too soft-hearted to understand the realities of policework. It just doesn't ring true to me: if anything, people tend to ignore violence if it has nothing to do with them.
    - mc32 14y ago
      I suppose this might be true in general (in a world where footage is not expected) --but if footage were to become commonplace, even expected (and this evidence), then there would have to a revisit to what's allowed and what isn't and what transgresses into police brutality (taking context into account, etc.) and what does not and how that would affect lawsuits, etc.
  - 14y ago
OGinparadise 14y ago
Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again. Not enough, IMO. The should face the same sentence the accused would have. But then, will we find enough cops and prosecutors without sins to throw the stones?
calibraxis 14y ago
> Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. I have to disagree. Their job is to maintain social control using violence (and the threat of it). If you take food from a store and give it to a hungry person, you'll face a man with a stick. What happens when you watch a DVD movie? You get threatened that a man with a stick will come after you if you copy it. Similar goes if you simply have the wrong color, which once meant you were a slave... or engage in civil disobedience. We can fantasize about how something like "police" would act in a future society, who just focus on real problems like violent drunks and child abusers. But that's not our world. We're like people under feudalism talking about how the king is a benevolent administrator of people's needs.
- schrodinger 14y ago
  Let me preface this statement by saying that I am a libertarian opposed to the excess powers granted to some police and the corrupt situations in which they may be found. However, in a city like NYC I (anecdotally) find that in the overwhelming cases I've encountered the police have focused on real problems like violent drunks and child Abusers. For case in point, I was with a group moving frm a party to a bar and we (lapsing judgement) carried a few beers with us for the walk over. Definitely not violent drunks. An undercover cop car was driving by and had (presumably) no choice but to detain us. In the end, he laughed at us and told us to pound our beers since we already got in trouble for them anyway (seriously, they laughingly told us to finish our beers off to the side while they wrote the ticket). It ended up behind a minor citation ($30) and a wink and get on with your night. Not a big deal. I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole all or even most officers as someone who will show Up "with a stick". While I lament unreasonable open container laws, these guys handled things very profrofessionally and respectfully. Maybe I got a skewed sample, but I, being pretty libertarian have been pretty impressed with the pragmatism and respect I've seen with the NYPD.

jlgreco 14y ago

Forget banned, they should be jailed, if not worse. They are undermining the entire legitimacy of the justice system, a cornerstone of our society. There are few worse crimes than undermining our ability to punish crime itself. Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.

noonespecial 14y ago
I suppose it would only be fair that they received the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which they were making the false accusation. Bonus points for allowing the trial to procede untainted and then just transferring the sentence.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  There are already laws against perjury, and in many cases, IIRC, it is a felony. Ironic, isn't it, that prosecutors are unwilling to pursue all these potential felony convictions...
  - lutusp 14y ago
    Lawyers tell me that judges rarely prosecute lying under oath, they just rule against the liars. The reason? If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial? He's already accused of that crime, so more lies makes little difference. This is why perjury trials are so rare. Also, "perjury", strictly defined, means testimony that's both material to the issues and leads to a miscarriage of justice. That's a tough standard.
    - rosser 14y ago
      How does the result of committing perjury ("a miscarriage of justice") factor into whether or not it's been committed? AIUI (IANAL), perjury requires three conditions be met: a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3). Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please?
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please? A reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury Point 1 -- materiality: "Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding." Point 2 -- resulting in a miscarriage of justice: "Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice." > a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3). Necessary but not sufficient. One must still meet the materiality and miscarriage of justice tests. And IANAL.
        rosser 14y ago
        Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether its commission results in a miscarriage of justice or not. It describes the elements of the crime as: an oath, an intent, a falsehood, and the materiality of that falsehood. Not to disparage that august institution, but I think something more authoritative than a Wikipedia citation is probably warranted to establish whether the result of an action is necessary for that action to be criminal, instead of the usual Model Penal Code standard of mens rea coupled with actus reus. EDIT: Once again, IANAL. Also, phrasing. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether the commission of perjury results in a miscarriage of justice or not. So it seems. In researching this, I see that the "miscarriage of justice" issue has two effects -- it often determines whether a case of perjury is pursued at all, and it affects the nature of the punishment (the sentencing phase). But it's not part of the formal definition that might lead to a determination of guilt. So I was wrong to state it the way I did earlier. The "miscarriage of justice" issue is important, but it's not part of the definition of perjury -- it only affects whether a case is pursued by a prosecutor, and it may then influence the punishment. Thanks for posting and correcting me.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    The cops work for and with the prosecutors. They're the ones that do investigations, collect evidence, and pick up suspects. That's why prosecutors won't cross them.
mc32 14y ago
>Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability. I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times (i.e. realize that sometimes drugged out people or domestic abuser need to be knocked out, for example. I mean that occasionally, there is an ugliness people might not want to admit exists but is necessary.) I think one has to consider the human factor in this and be aware of that when designing policing solutions.
- jjoonathan 14y ago
  > if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times The silent majority can and does realize this. Proof: http://mashable.com/2013/02/01/reddit-atlanta-mall-manager-taser/ http://mashable.com/2013/02/01/reddit-atlanta-mall-manager-t... I've seen this happen a number of times on reddit. Someone claims police brutality, the thread escalates to the main page, then eventually dies down with the top few posts taking a cool-headed stance. In fact, there have been times when I have found my own opinion on the less moderate side of the hivemind's consensus, and I consider myself fairly trigger-shy when it comes to criticizing the police for doing their job (possibly because I've never been on the wrong side of an arrest). I've heard the claim repeated many times that "democratic oversight" could never work because people, in general, are too soft-hearted to understand the realities of policework. It just doesn't ring true to me: if anything, people tend to ignore violence if it has nothing to do with them.
  - mc32 14y ago
    I suppose this might be true in general (in a world where footage is not expected) --but if footage were to become commonplace, even expected (and this evidence), then there would have to a revisit to what's allowed and what isn't and what transgresses into police brutality (taking context into account, etc.) and what does not and how that would affect lawsuits, etc.
- 14y ago

OGinparadise 14y ago

Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again. Not enough, IMO. The should face the same sentence the accused would have. But then, will we find enough cops and prosecutors without sins to throw the stones?

calibraxis 14y ago

> Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. I have to disagree. Their job is to maintain social control using violence (and the threat of it). If you take food from a store and give it to a hungry person, you'll face a man with a stick. What happens when you watch a DVD movie? You get threatened that a man with a stick will come after you if you copy it. Similar goes if you simply have the wrong color, which once meant you were a slave... or engage in civil disobedience. We can fantasize about how something like "police" would act in a future society, who just focus on real problems like violent drunks and child abusers. But that's not our world. We're like people under feudalism talking about how the king is a benevolent administrator of people's needs.

schrodinger 14y ago
Let me preface this statement by saying that I am a libertarian opposed to the excess powers granted to some police and the corrupt situations in which they may be found. However, in a city like NYC I (anecdotally) find that in the overwhelming cases I've encountered the police have focused on real problems like violent drunks and child Abusers. For case in point, I was with a group moving frm a party to a bar and we (lapsing judgement) carried a few beers with us for the walk over. Definitely not violent drunks. An undercover cop car was driving by and had (presumably) no choice but to detain us. In the end, he laughed at us and told us to pound our beers since we already got in trouble for them anyway (seriously, they laughingly told us to finish our beers off to the side while they wrote the ticket). It ended up behind a minor citation ($30) and a wink and get on with your night. Not a big deal. I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole all or even most officers as someone who will show Up "with a stick". While I lament unreasonable open container laws, these guys handled things very profrofessionally and respectfully. Maybe I got a skewed sample, but I, being pretty libertarian have been pretty impressed with the pragmatism and respect I've seen with the NYPD.