Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations
psycnet.apa.org
psycnet.apa.org
IMO A just nation who wanted to live out those^^ values would limit the rights of police (who are not judge or jury), and do the following:
1. Anything said before a lawyer is present is inadmissable
2. The officer's word is not considered superior to the defendent's
3. There are strictly enforced rights police must uphold until you're proven guilty. This includes basic comfort (think food, water, temperature regulation, sleep, access to daylight, contact with support people/friends/family)
4. You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change or if it does then all prior investigation is inadmissable evidence)
5. Police are not allowed to lie, or otherwise be deceptive
6. Police are liable for negative impacts they cause, including loss of work, loss of opportunity, disruptions of family etc. Acquittal should begin the process of recompense for losses.
I think in attempts to be "tough on crime" or "back the blue" America has lost it's sense of right and wrong / morality.
What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.
Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.
None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).
A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.
The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.
So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?
We certainly have some excellent procedural innovations in our court system. But we absolutely do have other problems that are much worse than those faced within the carceral systems of other countries at a similar level of wealth and development.
But anyway yeah we're way off track and your original point really seemed to be something like "but maybe the civilians deserve it" so I have not taken it seriously at any point and will continue not to.
The Netherlands offers the right to remain silent. All European counties I am familiar offer something similar. On the European level, this right has recently been affirmed. [1]
In the Netherlands, improperly obtained evidence is indeed not excluded in the Netherlands. Improperly obtaining evidence is a separate crime that does not taint the case for the initial crime, and is prosecuted separately. However, improperly handled evidence (e.g. broken chain of custody) is normally excluded.
In practice, improperly obtained evidence is not a major problem, it will in itself not help convict an innocent person. Improperly handled evidence however, can easily lead to an innocent person being convicted.
[1] https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/european-court-justi...
I'm sure you're right, but presumably this means it would take you significantly less than two minutes to offer some concrete sources that would help enlighten kvdveer and anyone else who might be interested.
It would be a fun thread, and I think a little eye-opening. But nobody is reading this thread at this point so it's not worth sinking a lot of effort in here.
Across the "american south"/the american slaveholding states, police departments were "founded" when municipalities printed metal stars ('sheriff's badges') and handed them to the _existing_ slave patrols. (plenty of other police departments beyond the american south started in the same way, but to appreciate the energy of it all, the place it started matters.)
these deputized slave patrols were given badges, presumably budgets, and the message: "keep on doing what you're doing, which is, among other things preventing slave rebellions and retaining 'human capital'.".
It's not easy for that 15% of the people, keeping the other 85% of the population from walking away or rebelling.
Oh, the book "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane is very short, less than 100 pages, and is worth the read. It rounds to "do not talk to the police", and 'viewing the police as adversarial agents is the only correct view, both in their own words and the words of their victims'.
If there's one right I'd like to see added it's this: the right to a trial without a jury. I'll admit it may have something to do with my social class and education, and where I live, but I trust a judge to make the right decision more than I trust a jury.
Already have the problem with bribery, this literally does not impact that.
The end result of that would logically have to be that everyone police talk to at all times are a "subject" because it's perfectly reasonable that someone who is questioned about what they know about a crime might end up having had some part in it.
The reasons police use these tactics is because in many jurisdictions, getting a guilty verdict is borderline impossible, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of direct evidence. Defense counsels have become experts in shit-slinging to ensure that juries are as confused as possible going into deliberations. "Jury of peers" means it's somewhere between possible and probable to get one or many jurors sympathetic to the defendant, especially in cities. Jurors attempting to appear "unbiased" frequently just choose the middle ground option between the prosecution and defense, without actually taking a look at the evidence.
The current system is extraordinarily flawed and leads to these outcomes where all sides are forced to use immoral tactics to get their desired outcome, because that's the only realistic shot they've got to accomplish their goals. The correct response is not to further kneecap one side of the conflict.
However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
Yeah.
Police use torture even here in the US.
Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black.
And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.
> I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent.
Why is that? Seems like you're going to get a lot of natives in trouble with that kind of advice. Never heard lawyers saying that in criminal Common Law countries for any minority.
The last time there were any statistics collected, an indigenous person in my province had a higher chance of completing a stint in a federal penitentiary than of completing an undergraduate degree. That’s what I’m talking about. You could use Google for three minutes instead of being so rude. You should try it.
Have a good one.
So you can end up having no troubles, in exchange of giving them useful information (e.g. to track down the dealer) even if it's incriminating you. It's informal, but it exists. It's a gamble (though there is an official status as well: "repenti")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
And accompanying paper:
Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule.
As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important.
It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you.
I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less.
Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.
There's a section in here about that: "Presentations of False Evidence"
"At times, American police will overcome a suspect’s denials by presenting supposedly incontrovertible evidence of guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. [...] In much of the world, police are not permitted to deceive suspects in this way."
You can't even trust police to tell you when you're doing something illegal.