"If you're found guilty, you could go away for life, but if you confess I'll go to the judge and offer less time"
Constitutional protections aren't there for the legal system, they're there for the accused.
Make it harder to convict, and maybe it'll get to a point where we realize we can't lock away societal problems, and have to start fixing root causes.
Ironically these techniques work better against the innocent than criminals. The criminals know that the cops lie and that simply shutting up is often a sufficient defense. The innocent get bamboozled and end up with jail time.
People really need to internalize this when it comes to their interactions with the police (and ultimately when it comes to their obligations as voters). After an investigation starts, the police's one and only job is to put someone in prison. Not to solve the case. Not to get to the truth. Not to promote some notion of justice. It's to get a conviction and that's it.
Choosing to talk to the police "because I have done nothing wrong" or "because I want to be cooperative" or "because I think they'll go easier on me if I do" are all terrible choices. When they are talking to you they have a single goal: To convict you.
Sure, that's the point. Less fucking over of innocent people should therefore be less impactful. ;)
The way they do in countries that have long forbade lying in interrogations:
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84483/is-it-generall...
> when they have no proof at all it's going to put a heavy burden on the prosecutor to get that person in jail.
Oh, how awful it is that a prosecutor has to prove someone's guilt! What next? Presumption of innocence?
Having followed the topic on and off for well over a decade: As a juror I never believe someone's confession. Rather irrelevant as most confessions won't get to trial, but it often takes very little to get a suspect to produce a false confession. At times, even without any deceit from the interrogators.
I wish I could recall one particular case: A person was murdered, and they charged another person living in the apartment complex. After a long interview session, he confessed. But his confession didn't match any of the evidence. So they pressured him to name an accomplice. The accomplice confessed. The evidence still didn't match. They kept pressuring the original suspect to name names until they had 4-5 people - all of whom confessed.
They later retracted their confessions, claiming duress. But the jurors convicted them on the strength of their confessions ("Who would confess to a murder? I wouldn't!").
They were, of course, all innocent. They spent time in prison, and eventually managed to get the courts to release them. But one or two still haven't been "exonerated" - their conviction stands and thus can't get jobs (or even an apartment).
Oh, and no physical coercion was involved. They were simply worn down by the long interrogation.
IIRC, over half of people whose convictions have been overturned involved a confession of guilt during interrogation (maybe it was just death row folks - don't remember the specifics).
That's not a realistic scenario. All actual evidence is disclosed as a matter of course in the justice process. Any bottom barrel attorney assures this, to whom the defendant has a right.
More from https://wainnocenceproject.org/stories/ted-bradford/
> An attorney sent by Ted’s wife was prohibited from entering the interrogation room by law enforcement, who told the attorney he would not be permitted in unless Ted specifically requested an attorney.
The cops are not interested in playing fair.
The cops may be doing something illegal, at which point the interrogation would be inadmissable. But that would validate that the system works. Remember that we are discussing lying and afforded protections against it. His attorney is an afforded protection, and he should have requested one.
It doesn't help that "not good" can include using a slightly slangy sentence ("laywer, dog") or sounding like you're asking permission or stating an opinion.
More importantly, the previous comment is referring to plea bargaining. Essentially, law enforcement is using the poor state of the current justice system to pressure people without resources into accepting a guilty verdict because the system is so stacked against them. Imagine:
"Yeah, you can try to prove your innocence, but we're going to hold you until your arraingment. That'll be at least a few weeks, which will mean you'll lose your job and your apartment and your car will be repo'd. And you'll probably lose anyway, because we've got all this evidence against you, and we promise its bulletproof. Or... You can take this deal we're offering. You plead guilty, and we'll let you walk out of here today."