Bill prohibiting police from lying to children passes Virginia Senate
courthousenews.com
courthousenews.com
An agent of the government can lie to your face, create fake documents to support that lie, and threaten you with prison to confess under the duress caused by this lie and we think this maybe shouldn't be ok, barely, but only for kids.
This is an insane world we live in that this is debated topic.
annotated example: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/i-200_and...
The fact that there hasn't been any accountability for them, and that Congress is so resistant to changing the program, and the courts failing to uphold the Constitution, is a real tragedy.
Earth is flat, not round
10% agree 9% unsure 80% disagree
With statistics like this, no state of affairs will surprise me. Perhaps needless to say, there's no reason to think whole 80% is reasonable; you'd expect a smooth gradient going across the 19%/80%, not through the 1% (which is lost in rounding I guess) but perhaps through most of the society, with only a small fraction of it being truly reasonable.
The educational system succeeded in teaching writing and reading, and not with much more, not when it comes to masses.
Both things: that everyone's capabilities (and limits) are different and individuals can increase their capabilities can be and are true.
So I can understand someone's concern that we have flat earthers, as well as your lack of concern.
Travel to any large body of water. Mark a boat with lines showing how high above the water each line is. Have somebody else pilot the boat out to sea. You observe that the lines show the boat as if its sinking. They observe the lines staying at a constant height. It's because the earth is curved and the water between you is blocking sight of the lines.
It's not enough to be stupid to be a flat-earther. You need to deny official authorities, believe in a conspiracy, and have an arrogant attitude of thinking of yourself as smarter than other despite being an idiot. So this is not a problem of some people simple being born with inefficient brains.
More importantly, you seem to ignore the 9%. To seriously consider the earth maybe is flat is already pretty damn ridiculous.
> It isn't trivial to prove the earth is flat
Of course, because it isn't. If you meant it isn't trivial to prove it isn't flat, well, in general it is hard to disprove an idea that isn't specific. But take any actual model of flat Earth, describing the movement of the Moon on quite a low altitude and it's trivial to prove it's wrong simply by looking at the Moon and always seeing the same side regardless where you live.
https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-sur...
> The use of this technique is essentially prohibited in some countries, including the United Kingdom[4] and the United States.[5] In Germany, which has high standards for what constitutes a voluntary confession, it may be more difficult to use confessions obtained by this technique.[5] The procedure has been used by police in Australia[6] and New Zealand,[7] and its use has been upheld by courts in both countries.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/18-year-old-arrested-on-...
I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.
The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.
Neither would the 1st, the 2nd, maybe the 5th, the 6th is already in abeyance when the accusers are minors, and definitely not the 10th. Maybe the 3rd would be approved?
Needless to say, I heartily approve of the entire Bill of Rights.
It’s a little bit like IT. When it’s working well, people think it isn’t doing anything.
The gold standard is to use child advocacy centers (CACs). Children suspected to be witnesses or victims to a crime are taken to a facility specifically for child interviews (i.e. not an interrogation room in a police station) and the interview is conducted by a trained forensic psychologist. These psychologists are specifically trained to work with children, and ask questions in a way that isn't leading and is likely to get accurate information. There is a ton of scientific literature and known protocols in this field.
People think police are judges or prosecutors and (falsely) trust what they say accordingly. The police are evidence collectors for the prosecution, who presents evidence to a judge. Police are the lowest men on the legal totem pole and have little power in deciding the outcome of your case.
That alone should be enough to make you never trust whatever they promise, because really they cannot promise anything.
False confessions don’t just send innocent people to prison, they also close cases without finding the actual culprits.
Remember the police are incentivized to catch people, not catch guilty people. So the easiest way for them to game the system isn’t in society’s best interest.
i sound like a conspiracy nut every time i bring this up, but wireless-networks-as-a-sensor seems unavoidable. there simply is no way to keep improving wireless transmitters without also increasing their environmental awareness and therefore leaking data about physical spaces. even simpler networks like wifi will dynamically adapt channels, frequencies to optimize speeds and it turns out you can extrapolate a lot from that [3]. advanced networks with features like beamforming are even more responsive to their environment and therefore more leaky. we're making accidental cameras, and they can see through walls.
it seems like this is going to be a "feature" of 6G mobile networks. read up on "joint communications and sensing" to find research in this area. (it's not just nokia.)
[1] https://www.nokia.com/blog/building-a-network-with-a-sixth-s...
[2] https://www.nokia.com/about-us/newsroom/articles/nokias-visi...
[3] https://news.ucsb.edu/2023/021198/wifi-can-read-through-wall...
Let's say you’re being held hostage by a dangerous armed criminal who has already harmed others and is threatening to kill you. The police arrive, and the criminal demands to know if there are snipers positioned outside. If the cop truthfully says “Yes,” the criminal might panic and shoot you immediately. Instead, the cop lies and says, “No, it’s just us talking, let’s work this out,” buying time for a sniper to take the criminal down and save your life.
Cops can lie to suspects during questioning. They can say "your friend already confessed" or "we just got a call from the lab, your DNA matches" or "you're getting the death penalty unless you confess right now". As well as bullshit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_(police_procedure) (in some jurisdictions).
I'm fine with undercover cops lying about whether or not they're wearing a wire, or your scenario. I'm not so keen on uniformed cops lying to elicit confessions.
This may be irrational, but I'm more worried about being falsely imprisoned by legal means than I am about being murdered by illegal means.
That's called "exigent circumstances", and a lot of rights are normally thrown out the window if that's the case - police don't need a warrant if threat of bodily harm to themselves or others is on the table.
And that isn't what most lying cops do is about - most of the time it is bad for the public.
That's a more expansive proposal than the law being discussed. The law is narrower than "investigating" and is focused only on interrogating a suspect, so presumably post-Miranda warning. And in this context being a "suspect" is a specific category elevated from being a witness or person of interest. And then the only penalty in the law is making a confession obtained as the result of a lie to a suspect during an interrogation inadmissable.
Those differences address the concerns mentioned downthread with lying in the context of undercover work.
There are lies that don‘t poison anything.
For instance police lies in an online chat to be a 12 year old girl to catch a child predator.
That’s still lying police just with extra steps.
A detective doing undercover work may require a degree of duplicity to achieve their aim, their authority as an officer is not what gets you to believe their lie, they almost always conceal that fact from you.
I think these are clearly distinct arenas of law enforcement.
reading some of the criticisms of their former behavior does highlight pretty strongly why exactly that kinda thing is problematic.
--your source
Not as straightforward as you're implying.
Government lies should be strongly regulated and see multiple layers of check and oversight. Re-review by new agents should be a frequent event. Lies should be expensive, they should have weight, and they should be only when strictly necessary for the good of the people.
As an example, 'fake' terrorists. Those who only rise to that level because someone in the government offered to sell (fake) explosives, etc. I believe that's more harm than good. However I'd also like real terrorists who would eventually figure out how to do bad things to get caught. Review, oversight, lies being expensive.
You can have secrets without having lies. Observe:
"What is the top speed of an F-16 fighter jet?"
"That information is classified."
I'm not entirely convinced there's any case where lying is required.
If you ask me how much is in my bank account, and I tell you it was $50 last time I checked, but I knew a $2000 deposit was coming, did I lie?
If you ask me about whether UFOs are real, and I tell you I've never seen one or met someone who credibly has, but I know we have a classified "Earth-Vulcan Treaty Negotiation" committee, did I lie?
If you ask me about the existence of programs to assassinate a dozen foreign leaders, and I answer 10 of them don't exist and say the answer to 2 are classified, but I know all 12 don't exist, did I lie?
It all goes down a rabbit hole of agency, intent, provability, and expected perception of what you communicated.
I'm convinced that the benefits of such a norm would far outweigh the downsides.
705 ILCS 405/5-401.6, "Prohibition of deceptive tactics."
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=0...
This is specifically about lying to children to manipulate them into giving testimony/confession.
Law enforcement shouldn't be so adversarial at every step.
Do you dare help the police, when you never know if they consider you friend or foe.
No, never. Give the minimum required information and try to exit the interaction as soon as possible. You are always considered foe, and likewise, should nearly always consider the police your foe.
The only exception is when you're the victim of a violent crime and need their assistance to pursue justice, but even then you have to be judicial in your interactions.
Deception is an natural strategy with upside for catching criminals. It could be banned, but there would be a non-zero cost to enforcement. The public generally wants to have it's cake and eat it tool
Plus it's not like children are the only vulnerable group.
Still, at least this is a step in the right direction. So we should be thankful for that.
You must admit that it's a tricky issue, differentiating between a cop purposely lying vs making an incorrect assertion. Should a defendant walk if it they can prove at trial that the cop said something that wasn't true?
That said, it's sad how often people incriminate themselves with drug possession because of the "gentle" lie that things will be a lot worse for them if the cop is the one to find the drugs.
I think the current status quo, where cops can lie to citizens about anything and everything with no consequence, is pretty bad. Sure it might help with some specific convictions, but the immense lack of trust and goodwill that generates in the entire public must cause a huge amount of harm and lose a number of other solvable cases.
Even though I'm not engaged in any criminal enterprises I am still wary about saying anything to police. Even though most police are decent people, mistakes happen and they are often under pressure to hit certain metrics. Indictments of innocent people are hardly rare and you never know what a cop's angle is, given their freedom to lie at will.
Plenty of other countries manage it.
If a police officer makes an honest mistake then that's fine. But if a police officer is repeatedly stating things during interrogations that they've misunderstood then they're grossly incompetent for whole different reasons than lack of honest character. Just like if a developer kept pushing broken code without any unit tests, you'd have a quiet word with them that they need to put more due diligence into their work.
It is deeply hostile and likely counter productive to the stated goals of police departments.
There is no way for normal people to distinguish a lawful order given by a police officer from a lie.
Should a defendant be found guilty if they were lied to by the cops? Explicit lied that are used to extract and manipulate confessions.
Remember, people are innocent until proven guilty. We don’t presume someone on trial is guilty. If they weren’t properly prosecuted, we shouldn’t assume the guilt is proper either.
Absolutely yes. These lies cause real harm, and the cops need to face consequences or they have no reason to abstain.
A friend of some of my friends would be alive today if a cop had not lied to him about the consequences of a minor fender-bender, claiming he'd put someone in the hospital with critical injuries and it was uncertain they'd survive. (The cop was caught on tape telling his partner, "it's a lie, but it's fun"; nobody was actually hurt, at all.) Overwhelmed with remorse, feeling the world would be better off without him, he killed himself.
The cop got a week's unpaid vacation for this.
[0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/210/perfect-evidence/act-tw...
You're not dropping any truth bombs, you're just rationalising cowardice in the face of injustice.