Comment by oskkejdjdkjd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by oskkejdjdkjd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Police are absolutely allowed to lie during an interrogation. I’ve seen it done multiple times. The most disturbing interrogation I’ve ever seen was actually the one where a teenager murdered his own father while under the influence of magic mushrooms. He was taken into the interrogation room shortly after the murder but enough time had elapsed that he was sober and just starting to understand the gravity of what he had done. The police sent in a soft-voiced female who spoke in a very caring and patient way. 99/100 people who watch that interrogation video would say that the woman was a therapist or councilor of some kind. Everything she asked and stated appeared to concern the wellbeing of this kid and the resolution of the terrible even that had taken place. In reality, everything she did was a cunning ploy with some kind of hidden goal. The entire interaction was calculated to extract information from him, very specific information, to be used against him in court. Every tangent of questioning she went on, seemingly random to the untrained eye, was highly specific in its value in a legal context.

An interrogation like this is not an example of outright lying, which is legal and commonly practiced, but it is much more sinister. It is an example of an interrogator assuming another identity and drawing the suspect into a false sense of warmth and security in order to make the suspect incriminate himself. To me, it is the same as having a conversation with your mother after a traumatic event, only to see her rip her own face off, a mask, to reveal the grotesque face of a police interrogator, and then going to jail for what you disclosed. Absolutely terrifying and dystopian. You absolutely must be proactive and protect yourself in this world. Even in “free” countries like the USA. https://youtu.be/rBpDHJIwcUk?t=1495

TLDR: the police are allowed to lie to you https://youtu.be/_WnhP91NJeU?t=1600

I have seen that interrogation video and I have no problem with her asking questions in a caring and patient way. In fact I would prefer all interrogations were like that one.

There are many, many, much worse examples.

The first one that comes to mind to me is when they interviewed that simple guy on the Netflix show, Making a Murderer. They basically told him everything would be ok if he just admitted to murdering someone, and prompted every detail by just badgering him. He had no idea how serious the charges were that he was admitting to, and clearly had no idea of the details of the murder until they prompted him. I'm sure he should have had a lawyer or guardian helping him, as you would with a child.

He's still in jail AFAIK.

Did you expect the guy to get off free for murder?

No but they also use the technique to coerce a confession out of someone who is innocent as part of a plea bargain.

Guilt is orthogonal to due process. What if the kid hadn't committed the murder but was duped into making incriminating statements anyway? Furthermore, considering testimony given while under the influence is ridiculous.

> "What if the kid hadn't committed the murder but was duped into making incriminating statements anyway?"

Then maybe it would make a better example for discussions like this. As it stands, that anecdote is little more than "the police are good at their jobs and they caught a murderer which is unambiguously good for everybody, but what if they were instead using their skills for something bad?"

> "Furthermore, considering testimony given while under the influence is ridiculous."

I'm sorry but expecting cops to never talk to drunk people is just absurd. There are plenty of valid objections to modern policing, but this isn't one of them.

As long as a witch is burned who cares how they did it? Cops lying and deceiving is fundamentally wrong. Don’t pretend that it’s required for police to get convictions. There are other ways.

Comparing the arrest of a murder to witch hunting is absurd. You know that's absurd, you don't need me to explain it to you.

> "Cops lying"

You already admitted the cops in your example didn't lie. They're guilty only of having a calm demeanor when interrogating a murder suspect, which for some reason you consider morally abhorrent.

I went through ur comment history and I have to say that I respect you.

It isn’t meant to directly compare this to witch hunting. It’s a case of people overlooking brutality because witches are bad anyway right? There are zillions of examples of this. It’s the concept that’s important. Saying that the technique of lying is ok because it gets rid or murderers is wrong especially in light of the fact that there are other ways to do it.

And yes, there is a grey area where interrogators don’t outright lie but are still highly deceptive. I don’t care about the grey area, I just care that police are allowed to outright lie. That is not grey. The example that I illustrated reveals how sinister the police can be. It is more emotionally stirring than mechanical lying. But the interrogator did reveal her title and so whatever. Seriously twisted still. But making outright lying routine is wrong. I don’t want to live in a world where police tell flat out lies to people. That is why we have Miranda rights. Under your logic there should be no reading of Miranda rights, allowing the police to tell the suspect literally anything like “if you don’t confess we will do x” or “you have to tell us something or you’ll be locked up forever” or whatever. Miranda rights exist for an extremely good reason. And stopping outright lying is a continuation of the spirit of Miranda rights.

And the prevailing sympathy on HN for defendants is orthogonal to due process as well. There is no violation of due process here, without regard to the number of commenters who just don't like it.

You can hardly call it a conviction when it was based on deception.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com