![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nancylebovhttps://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2024-09/Policy-Analysis-979-update.pdf
This is an overview of American police having legal permission to lie to suspects. It's got the history, reasons why it's a bad idea, and a little about countries that don't permit it. Furthermore, having permission to lie to suspects slides into police lying during trials-- this is illegal, but almost never punished.
I was surprised to find that the laws were originally intended to prevent overt torture of suspects, and they seem to have worked pretty well at that. However, exceptions were made for deception, and the result was a lot of deception and a significant number of false convictions and punishment of innocent people.
Deceptions take various forms-- some of it is just denying any claim or argument the suspect makes. There's exaggerating the risk and amount of punishment the suspect is risking and claiming they can just go home if they confess.
False claims of physical evidence, lie detector evidence, or testimony from other people that the suspect is guilty. And then there's breaking down the suspect's belief that they didn't do it-- claiming that they can forget or hallucinate that they didn't do it.
This is the Reid method, and it's known to produce false confessions. The British police use the Peele method, which is designed to find both incriminating and exculpatory evidence.
At this point, some of you might be tempted to say that you wouldn't confess to a crime you didn't commit. I think it's a reflex to say that, but it isn't relevant. Aside from that you can't know unless you've been there, a lot of the people who are vulnerable are young or mentally disabled. They shouldn't get such treatment.
Also, a lot of people are raised to comply with authority. Wouldn't it be nice if authority were trustworthy?
There seems to be a belief that police have intuition which enables them to recognize criminals, but I believe you acquire intuition from repeated feedback, and while police are going to learn a lot about how people are likely to react to them, police don't find out whether convicts are guilty and generally insist that evidence of innocence should be ignored. There is no feedback.
The article says that other developed countries don't permit police to lie, and don't seem to need it. I'm not sure how strong the argument is-- it's mentioned that they get the same rate of confessions, but why is that important? At the very least, they don't have higher crime rates. (Not researched, I'm assuming I would have heard about it if they did.)
One point which is missed is that false conviction implies that the actual criminal isn't caught or punished. They're free to commit more crimes.
I haven't personally run into problems with the police, so my tone is more de haut en bas* than personal rage. My country isn't living up to my very reasonable standards.
*from high to low
I'm not sure what's to be done about this. It seems reasonable that a dedicated lobbying organization might do the job. Maybe one already exists.
I liked Obama because, as as Illinois legislator, his major accomplishment was a law requiring video for interrogations for capital crimes. Even getting that much was very hard. He dropped the subject later on, though.
The article suggests some legal solutions, like video of interrogations from beginning to end, or forbidding specific techniques, or not allowing deception of minors.
I've seen suggestions that people don't change their behavior because it's shown to be counterproductive or immoral-- the real pressure comes from behavior being shown to be ridiculous. Perhaps a tv show about a bumbling police department is needed.
This is an overview of American police having legal permission to lie to suspects. It's got the history, reasons why it's a bad idea, and a little about countries that don't permit it. Furthermore, having permission to lie to suspects slides into police lying during trials-- this is illegal, but almost never punished.
I was surprised to find that the laws were originally intended to prevent overt torture of suspects, and they seem to have worked pretty well at that. However, exceptions were made for deception, and the result was a lot of deception and a significant number of false convictions and punishment of innocent people.
Deceptions take various forms-- some of it is just denying any claim or argument the suspect makes. There's exaggerating the risk and amount of punishment the suspect is risking and claiming they can just go home if they confess.
False claims of physical evidence, lie detector evidence, or testimony from other people that the suspect is guilty. And then there's breaking down the suspect's belief that they didn't do it-- claiming that they can forget or hallucinate that they didn't do it.
This is the Reid method, and it's known to produce false confessions. The British police use the Peele method, which is designed to find both incriminating and exculpatory evidence.
At this point, some of you might be tempted to say that you wouldn't confess to a crime you didn't commit. I think it's a reflex to say that, but it isn't relevant. Aside from that you can't know unless you've been there, a lot of the people who are vulnerable are young or mentally disabled. They shouldn't get such treatment.
Also, a lot of people are raised to comply with authority. Wouldn't it be nice if authority were trustworthy?
There seems to be a belief that police have intuition which enables them to recognize criminals, but I believe you acquire intuition from repeated feedback, and while police are going to learn a lot about how people are likely to react to them, police don't find out whether convicts are guilty and generally insist that evidence of innocence should be ignored. There is no feedback.
The article says that other developed countries don't permit police to lie, and don't seem to need it. I'm not sure how strong the argument is-- it's mentioned that they get the same rate of confessions, but why is that important? At the very least, they don't have higher crime rates. (Not researched, I'm assuming I would have heard about it if they did.)
One point which is missed is that false conviction implies that the actual criminal isn't caught or punished. They're free to commit more crimes.
I haven't personally run into problems with the police, so my tone is more de haut en bas* than personal rage. My country isn't living up to my very reasonable standards.
*from high to low
I'm not sure what's to be done about this. It seems reasonable that a dedicated lobbying organization might do the job. Maybe one already exists.
I liked Obama because, as as Illinois legislator, his major accomplishment was a law requiring video for interrogations for capital crimes. Even getting that much was very hard. He dropped the subject later on, though.
The article suggests some legal solutions, like video of interrogations from beginning to end, or forbidding specific techniques, or not allowing deception of minors.
I've seen suggestions that people don't change their behavior because it's shown to be counterproductive or immoral-- the real pressure comes from behavior being shown to be ridiculous. Perhaps a tv show about a bumbling police department is needed.
no subject
Date: 2024-11-25 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-11-25 06:48 pm (UTC)Of course, it later turned out that there was a prowler and he did break in to the house and murder the girl.