[jachriga]

> If criminals would behave themselves, there would be less demand for "law enforcement".

I don't think you realize you're arguing against all laws here?

Criminals don't behave themselves, so we make laws and punish them. Law enforcement doesn't behave itself, so we should make laws and punish them.

[mrangle]

>I don't think you realize you're arguing against all laws here?

How does the relative concept of "less demand begs less supply" translate into an absolutist eradication argument in your mind?

Ignoring you moving the goalpost from a conversation about law enforcement personnel to a conversation about the legal code. See next.

How does a comment on law enforcement personnel supply (ie: the enforcement part of law enforcement) logically migrate to a comment on the legal code's existence?

I made no such argument. I made a rhetorical point that meant to imply that law enforcement personnel supply (relative ability to enforce the law in any given area), and their techniques, are the outcome of criminality.

Given that LE lying to suspects is not "misbehavior" but a standard investigative technique that falls comfortably within a just legal system.

All evidence has to be disclosed. There are already justifiably harsh laws against falsifying evidence for the purpose of charging suspects.

Suspects have the right to shut up and to an attorney, both of which will fully protect them from being coerced into giving false confessions.

[gs17]

>All evidence has to be disclosed.

The article is about a case where it was not truthfully disclosed:

>Bradford recalls police making threats and lying to him about DNA evidence they said proved he committed the crime. After hours of interrogation, he confessed, hoping the evidence would acquit him.

"Falsifying evidence" does not apply when it's words spoken during an interrogation. If his confession became fruit of the poisoned tree due to lying to him, it wouldn't have been an issue. At least 10 years of this man's life was lost because non-existent evidence was claimed in an interrogation.

>Given that LE lying to suspects is not "misbehavior" but a standard investigative technique that falls comfortably within a just legal system.

Several other countries don't rely on this "technique". Surely you don't think American cops are so incompetent they can't catch anyone without it.

>Suspects have the right to shut up and to an attorney, both of which will fully protect them from being coerced into giving false confessions.

Except the suspects typically do not know the rules of the game they're being forced to play. The "I want a lawyer, dog" guy knew he had a right to an attorney, he didn't know you need to prompt engineer the police.

[mrangle]

>The article is about a case where it was not truthfully disclosed

Meaning that evidence has to be disclosed for trial, after it would serve as part of the predicate for charging the suspect. Though, you knew that.

If the evidence doesn't exist then the charge won't come unless there was a confession. Many such confessions are real. Which is part of why lying about evidence is an investigative technique.

In other words, they won't be politically successful in making a long-standing investigative technique illegal for the sake of suspects. Not when it puts real murderers, and other actually guilty and violent people, behind bars when no other tack was available. Often, these confessions lead to the necessary other evidence. The defense against this tactic is silence and an attorney.

A suspect always has to have an attorney. They should request one ASAP, and keep requesting one while keeping silent. It is ridiculous to assume that cops wouldn't put masses of innocents in jail, should attorney's and the law that protects defendants not exist.

Which means that this particular conversation rests on a silly assumption that a code can protect people in itself, without an attorney. It can't. It won't ever. Make lying illegal: it won't matter in the slightest. What's the concept here: that the law is supposed to protect a suspect in the absence of an attorney, because what? An attorney will arrive later to make sure that the cops follow the letter of the law and to threaten the cops for something that was asked and answered when they weren't present? Good luck with that. It might work a handful of times, and not after. The fact is that suspects need an attorney before they speak, always. Its the only protection.

Evidence does not have to be disclosed as a part of an interrogation. To imply that it might is ridiculous. It can also be lied about as an interrogation technique. The safety against these lies are silence and an attorney (and an innocent conscience as a far distant third).

>Surely you don't think American cops are so incompetent they can't catch anyone without it.

Its amazing that you think that you can be successful in anything with this type of condescending approach. Especially when you are the one that has to convince a large system to change. I can hear your teeth gnashing.