[gnicholas]

> So why should I believe, if this law passes, anybody in the justice system will enforce it?

Easy: because interrogations are videotaped and disclosed to defense attorneys. Currently, police can walk in and say “we found your prints at the scene, so you better start talking”. If an officer did this under the new regime, it would be illegal — and would be disclosed to the defense attorney.

And under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, anything elicited by that lie would be excluded from trial.

Basically, the types of lies people make on the stand are hard to disprove. The types of lies that cops tell in interrogations are not hard to disprove. They are also on video, and handed over to defense attorneys.

[bombcar]

This the way to stop it. Make it fruit of the poisonous tree and the prosectors will get the cops to shut up, because all their good evidence will be destroyed by it.

It's amazing how much they have to work around things that would incriminate or sway a jury (such as cutting out anything that might reveal priors), and this would be something more.

[echelon]

Why is this a good thing? Shouldn't cops be able to lie and put pressure on suspects?

Isn't this necessary especially in larger cases where it's necessary to get one suspect to roll over on another?

As long as defense attorneys are involved, what is the harm in this?

[gs17]

>Isn't this necessary especially in larger cases where it's necessary to get one suspect to roll over on another?

There are multiple countries where it's not allowed, so it's definitely not necessary.

>As long as defense attorneys are involved, what is the harm in this?

Generally the cops will try as hard as they think they can get away with to keep your attorney away. This article is about someone who immediately asked if he should have an attorney, was told he didn't need one, and when one showed up anyways, he wasn't even allowed to know there was someone hired to represent him.

The harm is that juries and judges really love signed confessions and cops love to pressure for one. The Reid Technique's entire goal is to take someone from saying "no, I didn't do it" to "okay, I'll sign that I did it". Ted Bradford had an alibi and a recanted confession that confessed things that obviously didn't match the facts of the case, and the confession was enough even when he finally had an attorney. It was enough that:

>Despite the exonerating DNA evidence and the fact that Ted had already served his entire sentence for the crime, Yakima County prosecutors chose to charge Ted with the same sexual assault once again, offering his initial false statement in 1996 as the evidence against him.

[psychlops]

The harm is that innocent people incriminate themselves. People are not experts on the law and make mistakes all the time. Even if they are eventually exonerated, the process is the punishment and there is no recourse.

Not to mention that defense attorneys are usually overworked, working for free and you generally get what you pay for.

[pixl97]

This right here. Any state assigned attorney is going to say "Take the plea". Simply put, most of the suspects do not have the money to present the case as needed in front of the courtroom, and the lawyer states, taking the plea is less apt to bankrupt you.

[bombcar]

To be brutally honest, some huge percentage of people who get to the "plea" option are actually and truly guilty - this causes all sorts of issues.

(One of the strange side-effects of mandatory sentencing is removing plea deals because if they HAVE to charge you with X, and guilty or plead on X is Y years in jail, then there is no reason not to go to a jury trial, because the worst case is you get Y years anyway, which you get when you plea out.)

If criminals really were organized and forced everything to jury trials, the United States would collapse.

[gnicholas]

> As long as defense attorneys are involved, what is the harm in this?

Good point, suspects have a right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. But much of the successful lying probably happens when an attorney isn't present. For example "look, we can wait for your lawyer to get here, but this is looking really bad for you. We just arrested your buddy and once he sings we'll just throw the book at you. If you give your side of the story first, you get the better deal."

A suspect without a lawyer might waive the right to counsel/silence and incriminate himself. Of course, he would be guilty, so it's not entirely clear this is a bad thing (unless he is falsely admitting guilt, which does occasionally happen).

[justinclift]

> Shouldn't cops be able to lie ...

"Hell no" seems like the obvious answer, but you seem to disagree?

[echelon]

Since I feel that someone who murders or rapes someone should be spared little mercy, then by extension I feel this is an acceptable tool so long as it doesn't harm the innocent.

[justinclift]

Are you meaning there should be no presumption of innocence, or are you meaning the lying should only be allowed after they've been convicted?

[int_19h]

Of people who got exonerated through DNA testing during 1989-2020, 29% involved a false confession (https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-...).

[jjav]

> as it doesn't harm the innocent

The whole point here is that the person at this stage is presumed innocent.

[gs17]

>someone who murders or rapes someone should be spared no mercy

But we're supposed to presume "innocent until proven guilty". A suspect is only accused, not convicted.

[bobthepanda]

That assumes the person in the interrogation room is the correct person to begin with. We have a fair amount of false conviction rates.

[Terr_]

> Why is this a good thing? Shouldn't cops be able to lie and put pressure on suspects?

The problem is that--so far--we don't have a good way to allow the acceptable kinds while also prohibiting the terrible kinds.

Imagine the police give an overwhelming list of false/non-existent evidence and testimony, so that the average (innocent) person would assume they're being deliberately framed by some power they are unable to fight, and that the only way to protect themselves and their loved ones is to buckle under.

Another example would be where police lie/deliberately-mislead a suspect about the consequences of a confession.

[scarface_74]

If you have a choice between admitting you did something you didn’t do and get a lighter sentence or know you’re going to be railroaded by the justice system and still lose, which one are you going to do?

And the “defense attorneys” are going to be overworked underpaid public defenders while the prosecutors have what amounts to an unlimited budget

[bombcar]

I'd argue you almost have a moral obligation to take the railroading, otherwise society begins to collapse. At least with the railroad there's a chance that the defense is sufficient, that the jury concurs, and the issues get exposed. If nobody fights it, it will metastasize.

I understand how impossibly hard that could be in the moment, but never never go quietly into that dark night.

Unless, of course, you're guilty and you know it, then clap your hands on anything that reduces what you have to suffer for it, I guess.

[scarface_74]

Really? Sit in jail for maybe 3 or 4 extra years for the “good of society”?

[Tostino]

For a society that has utterly failed them in the first place...not a chance in my book.

[anamax]

> As long as defense attorneys are involved, what is the harm in this?

How about because defense attorneys are very expensive?

[nullindividual]

People have killed themselves due to cops lying.

There's the harm.

[echelon]

Okay, so there's a negative externality to this approach. Is there a measure of this?

If preventing cops from lying results in fewer trials going to court for violent crime, then I'd be curious to compare the two figures.

I'm anxious about having fewer tools to investigate and prosecute. We used to have a 70% homicide clearance rate, but that's dropped to just 50% [1]. This feels like we'd be further trying our hands.

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/3878472-nearly-half-of-us-murde...

[nullindividual]

You're using the same argument that death penalty supporters use.

MOST of them are guilty, so killing ALL of them is OK! Wouldn't want to let off the guilty ones.

The smart cops cut out all of this by simply killing the unarmed suspect before pronouncing the 'p' in 'stop'.

[trogdor]

>interrogations are videotaped

Interrogations are not always videotaped. State laws vary widely.

Many states require audio recording only. Other states only require recordings for felony investigations. Many states only require recording of custodial interrogations for specific offenses, such as rape and murder.

At one point, California only required recordings of custodial interrogations involving juveniles suspected of having committed murder, but that might have changed — I haven’t looked into this in a while.

[20after4]

No, interrogations aren't videotaped, at least not always. And even if they are, the police can destroy the video and just use their handwritten notes, and their memory, to testify against you at a trial. Your word against theirs. Tape disappeared. So sorry about your luck.

[anamax]

> because interrogations are videotaped

The FBI doesn't do audio recordings, let alone video.