Hacker News Reader

Comment by chacham15 | Hacker News Reader

IMO the point of stopping police from lying shouldnt be to prosecute the police (as perjury is already illegal), but rather, to indemnify the person who was lied to for actions they took under false pretenses. So, if the police lie to you and say "we have you on camera at the 7/11" and as a result you say "I dont really recall..maybe I got a soda from there and dont remember?" that second statement shouldnt be used against you if they dont actually have you on camera whereas today that statement would be used to show that you couldve been there (because you said so yourself). This is easy to demonstrate in court and consequently toss out that secondary statement which would otherwise be evidence.

View on HN

> as a result you say "I dont really recall..maybe I got a soda from there and dont remember?" [...]

> today that statement would be used to show that you couldve been there (because you said so yourself).

They can use "I don't remember" ?

Isn't the whole point of interrogation to get a suspect to make conflicting statements, then pressure them when the statements don't line up as a means to get a confession?

Why is this a bad thing? If this tool goes away, couldn't conviction rates plummet (for eg. violent crimes)?

I'm having trouble seeing an ethical problem here?

Do you want confessions or justice?

Blackstone's Ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio

Which has about zero to do with actual reality.

The reality in the US is if you want re-elected you better be tough on crime, which means people going to jail. No one seems to give a shit if the people that committed the crime are going to jail, as long as someone is found guilty.

No they care. They make sure that the people doing the crimes remain free to abuse the innocent. Hint: it's the police and politicians (and their buddies) committing a lot of the crimes.

> They can use "I don't remember" ?

They absolutely can, and will use that in a court of law. Any comment that you make that seems completely fine from your perspective can quickly be turned around to lock you up.

I highly recommend checking out this lecture when you get a chance: https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Police are not generally concerned with getting the right person, they're just concerned with getting a person.

> Why is this a bad thing? If this tool goes away, couldn't conviction rates plummet (for eg. violent crimes)?

Even if they do, the real question is whether false convictions will plummet more than true convictions. There are an awful lot of people who "confessed" to crimes didn't commit.

“You might as well admit you did $x, we have your fingerprints at the scene. We might go lighter in you”.

This is when they don’t have fingerprints.

Here's a hot take -- maybe we could just make self-incriminating statements inadmissible altogether unless it's given as testimony, verbal or written and signed while not under duress.

If the only evidence the police have is what you say, then that should be insufficient.

The case has obviously fallen out of the limelight but Brendan Dassey should be the poster boy for why this is true.

The counter argument being donald trump, where every other sentence is some admission of guilt.

You mean the only evidence is what the police say you said.

No, I mean that "suspect said X" testimony wouldn't be admissible, so it would never be your word against the cop.

Yes, we agree. I was just clarifying that "what you said" can be quite different from "what the police said you said".

If it were recorded then that's different....

This made me do some research into "hearsay" because I'm not really familiar with how it all works.

> Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay#United_States

So it's not hearsay if it makes you look bad (but it is if it makes you look good), and police don't even have to be telling the truth, nor do they really have to be worried about perjury charges if a given encounter was not recorded.

I still can't imagine why a confession given in interview isn't logically nullified by:

"How does the defense plead?"

"Not guilty, Your Honor."

On top of that, statistically, a guilty confession results in a massive bias from the jury, often to the point of completely overriding exculpatory evidence (like, say, witness testimonies of alibi, or forensics).

In the USA you have the fifth amendment right against self incrimination.

Also you have NO obligation to say anything to police in an interrogation and can always request an attorney to speak on your behalf. Subjects are reminded of this during the reading of Miranda Rights.

If you are ever in a police interrogation you should always decline to speak without an attorney.

It is bewildering why people don't exercise their rights.

It's not bewildering. There are an awful lot of people out there who were raised to trust police as "the good guys" and it's extremely easy for those people to be manipulated into what they think will be a quick interview to help out in solving a case, only to have the spotlight turned on them before they realize what's happening.

--"because if you cooperate with us, everything will go easy, if you keep resisting, thats proof of guilt and youll get the max, plus charges for resisting"

Because in most places cops are liars beyond what you'd ever believe.

Civil rights violations are simply status quo. I come from a family with members in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They have had to kick detectives out of interrogation rooms because the detectives get abusive and simply ignore "I'd like to speak to my attorney". The cops just won't stop harassing, lying, and even abusing the suspect.

Most people are not going to do well in a stressful situation with a person in a position of authority abusing them. And our criminal justice system here in the US is ok with that.

Let's try this thought experiment. You are shopping at a grocery store. It's a regular day in your life. Then, without warning, you are arrested by the cops and taken to the police station. They put you in the holding cell. They take your laptop, phone, etc. You ask for your one call. They lead you to the wall mounted phone and you stick your quarter in.

What percentage of the HN readership here would be able to dial the number of a competent criminal attorney?

Engagement with the criminal justice system is so out of the ordinary for most people that they simply do not know what to do. It's easy to say, "shut up and call your lawyer", but most regular joes have absolutely no idea how to find a lawyer, vet them, engage with them, etc.

In normal life, if you need a lawyer, you Google some reviews, or you look up something in yellow pages, or you ask your local state bar association for a referral for the area of legal practice. None of those things are happening at 2am in a holding cell without any of your regular devices. And asking for the public defender is not likely to give you much comfort given their caseload.

Now imagine that you are not the classic affluent educated HN reader with access to all kinds of resources, and consider what it must be like for working class people. It's not fun.

You don't call a lawyer, you call the most competent person whose phone number you can remember and tell them to get a lawyer.

Ideally, you have a relationship with one or more, but if you don't come from an upper middle class background with a refined appreciation for insurance policies, now is the time you call your most competent contact and beg them to get the ball rolling on a lawyer and bail.

Part of Miranda is that the state will obtain a lawyer for you. It might be a shit lawyer that just wants to plea, but it stops the self incrimination part.

Yeah and if the shit lawyer doesn't do his job then you have grounds for appeal. Always trust your lawyer to handle your legal business. Should be taught in schools with civic lessons. You literally have nothing to gain from talking to police without a lawyer if you are detained.

People don't exercise their rights when a) they are not informed of them, and b) they're under duress.

What's more bewildering is why juries (who are not facing jail time themselves) don't find defendants innocent in every case involving the police since it's known that the police are allowed to lie, and it's also known they will face little to no repercussions from doing so even under oath.

The people that get picked for a jury (that make it through all the rounds of vetting) are the types of people who believe the 'justice system' is fundamentally just and that the police are public servants. The people who see through that are filtered out or filter themselves out of the process.

This strikes me as an absurd Reddit tier statement. How many criminal cases do not involve police? You are suggesting juries should throw out ALL cases involving police?

I'm not saying what anybody should do. I'm saying I'm surprised juries don't throw out more cases, given the latitude police have for lying during interrogations and the lack of repercussions for doing so under oath.

Just don't ask for a "lawyer, dawg" because that will be interpreted as a literal request for a canine that practices law, which doesn't exist[0].

[0]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...

Fifth amendment rights in the US are a joke.

I suggest reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique. There's a reason why it's being used, and there's also a reason why many false confessions are attributed to it.

Or we can blame the victims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com