• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lying cops...

Should cops be allowed to lie when interrogating someone?

  • Total voters
    46
Goshin said:
I made sure I had this talk with my son when he was about 15... I felt bad that I had to tell him "don't trust cops", but having been one I felt that I had no choice...
Click to expand...

Yep. Police want to "close the case", preferably by getting a confession. Telling a "suspect" that they will likely get convicted, based on some fabricated CSI BS, is the quickest/easiest route to achieve that end. Very few cases go to trial and always remember this simple, basic right (the Miranda warning):

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ha! I watched both of these videos last year and it really had a profound effect on me. I had no idea how much could go wrong just talking to cops even if you're completely innocent.
Click to expand...
That's another reason why a lot of us oppose gun registration: it's not that we're guilty of something and have something to hide, it's that the information will be misused, such as a gun-grab.

If gun registration were like car registration, for purposes of collecting taxes to pay for some kind of public access, or for returning a stolen gun to it's rightful owner, then there wouldn't be a big stink about it.
 

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
 
I don't think so. If I were ever arrested for anything, whether I were guilty or innocent, I would lawyer up immediately. If anyone's not familiar with the expression "lawyer up," it means to use your right to remain silent and demand your attorney. Since I know a cop has the right essentially to tell me anything, even if it's a ridiculous lie, I just don't trust them. The only person I would speak with would be my attorney.
 


Like I said you have no idea how it works and you have even less of a chance of ever changing it...
 
What's a failure? Yes, let's look at inner-cities. Cops lie in investigations (for the most part), and they are legally allowed to do so. We also have the highest incarceration rate in the world AND we still have crappy crime-infested neighborhoods. Not to mention that organizations like the Innocence Project are doing a booming business precisely because way too many innocent people get caught up in the system.
 
Last edited:
FWIW: According to a book I read a couple years ago, our's is the only "first world" nation that allows its police to lie to suspects.

Take that however you want.
 
As far as the original question goes, guilt vs innocence of the suspect is wholly and completely irrelevant.
 
Courts use a shock the conscious test for police lies. They cannot say things like "Your mom was in an accident and is in the hospital and is about to die; as soon as you confess, I can take you there to see her before its too late" and have that stand on an appeal, but otherwise, things like "I have a witness who saw you" are fair game. I cannot conceive of why people would confess to a crime they did not commit, so if they do it solely because of a police lie makes zero sense to me.
 
radcen said:
It also amazes me how many people agree to polygraph tests. They're junk science.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whether innocent or guilty, NEVER agree to a polygraph. If they call it a lie detector test, tell them the truth that there's no such thing as a lie detector. The things should be banned for anything other than a parlor trick.
 
I thought, in most cases, polygraphs weren't admissible in court because they are so unreliable. All they are really good for are tools the prosecution uses to sway the jury.
 
Superfly said:
I thought, in most cases, polygraphs weren't admissible in court because they are so unreliable. All they are really good for are tools the prosecution uses to sway the jury.
Click to expand...

They are admissible in court if both the prosecution and defense agrees. I doubt I'd take one myself...I'd leave it to my attorney. Seems to me that the only thing the results can do are hurt you...since if the test determines you're not lying, they wouldn't necessarily believe it anyway...which says a great deal about their thoughts about it as well.
 
lpast said:
Like I said you have no idea how it works and you have even less of a chance of ever changing it...
Click to expand...

A lot of people seem to have that same misconception. By all means, enlighten all of us why LEO's all need to be lying pieces of ****. As of now all you've done is say "you don't understand it" then run off.
 

I think this is backward. The only thing a polygraph can do is help you. The results of a polygraph are entirely up to the defense to use. Very rarely does a suspect pass a polygraph administered by police (and by extension the prosecution) and a judge dismiss it. However, if you fail the defense has great success in getting them thrown out. Also I believe many times a person passes a polygraph it points to their innocence in the eyes of law enforcement and they begin to look at other alternatives as well.
 
Should cops be allowed to lie when interrogating someone?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. They need to get the truth. A lie isnt going to make you be guilty. It could trap you into admitting guilt, which if you are guilty then I dont care if you were trapped.
 
samsmart said:
When government prosecutors suppress evidence that indicates a suspect's innocence, or even manufactures evidence implicating the suspect, they aren't quite the paragon of honor themselves.
Click to expand...

Of course, and both of those things are serious ethical violations and potentially even crimes themselves (certainly in the case of manufacturing evidence) but neither of those things are what we're talking about here, at all.
 
muciti said:
Absolutely. They need to get the truth. A lie isnt going to make you be guilty. It could trap you into admitting guilt, which if you are guilty then I dont care if you were trapped.
Click to expand...

A lie can make someone admit guilt to a crime they didn't commit. Especially if the police are promising lenient sentences in exchange for pleading guilty.Many people don't fight.Many companies for example just settle out of court because fighting it can become costly.Many people plead guilty because fighting it can result in a more severe punishment should they fight and lose.
 
A police officer who is supposedly supposed to be a "protector" of justice should not be allowed to lie which is inherently unjust.
Lying is a slap in the face of justice.
 
Lying is perfectly fine... lie away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…