• 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!

Should police be allowed to lie in investigations?

Should police be allowed to lie in investigations?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 8 25.8%
  • No.

    Votes: 19 61.3%
  • Sometimes/other.

    Votes: 4 12.9%

  • Total voters
    31
Suspects can lie to police. It's not against the law to lie to them. Cops can't arrest you because you lie to them. Can't prosecute you for lying to them either. (Federal agents -- different story)

:doh Oh, Maggie, Maggie, Maggie... sometimes I wonder where you get your information.

Here's an LE forum where pretty much every officer who chimed in says you're incorrect... Charged for Lying to an Officer?
 
As I posted earlier, I don't support entrapment. My support is limited to the interrogative process that follows an arrest. Can a cop then say they have a witness that doesn't exist. Of course. How is that entrapment or coercion?

Now, we also have lying cops and prosecutors who lie to the court. Whole 'nother problem. Outrageously wrong and they get away with it.

Can they? Yes. How is it entrapment, they are purposefully setting the stage for emotional conflict and through they lie make it seem that they already know and will help as best they can if only the suspect would admit to something...anything. Because once they have "anything" all bets are off. Those lies they told, they "making it easy" they spoke of; that ain't gonna happen. It's "welcome to ****ed-ville...population you". One wouldn't admit to the tiniest of things without the aggressive bullying, psychological warfare, and sometimes physical assaults launched by the cops against the freeman. Thus they use their force of government to force your hand in violating your own rights and incriminating yourself to them.

You may have argument that it's not the 100% legal definition of entrapment (though spiritually it is), but you have no argument that it's not coercion.
 
:doh Oh, Maggie, Maggie, Maggie... sometimes I wonder where you get your information.

Here's an LE forum where pretty much every officer who chimed in says you're incorrect... Charged for Lying to an Officer?

Government lying to you? Oh well, that's acceptable. You lying to government? Well that's just one toke over the line sweet jesus.
 
Well, you're adding a lot of things I didn't presume. Slapping people around or waterboarding them is coercion. Telling a fib is different. It's not legal for a cop to physically harm you. They may break the law but again, that's not the specific subject here.

I've been arrested but I was never innocent. I've been accused, but I was never guilty. So, it doesn't seem that complicated to me. If you committed a crime, you should be caught. If you didn't - relax. You are just having an unlucky day.


Can they? Yes. How is it entrapment, they are purposefully setting the stage for emotional conflict and through they lie make it seem that they already know and will help as best they can if only the suspect would admit to something...anything. Because once they have "anything" all bets are off. Those lies they told, they "making it easy" they spoke of; that ain't gonna happen. It's "welcome to ****ed-ville...population you". One wouldn't admit to the tiniest of things without the aggressive bullying, psychological warfare, and sometimes physical assaults launched by the cops against the freeman. Thus they use their force of government to force your hand in violating your own rights and incriminating yourself to them.

You may have argument that it's not the 100% legal definition of entrapment (though spiritually it is), but you have no argument that it's not coercion.
 
As I posted earlier, I don't support entrapment. My support is limited to the interrogative process that follows an arrest. Can a cop then say they have a witness that doesn't exist. Of course. How is that entrapment or coercion?
It can be...

Detective: We know you did it. We have two witnesses who have already given statements to that fact. We don't need your confession, and with the mandatory minimum sentence being 50 years you're in for a world of hurt. But, confess now, and we'll see if we can get you a plea deal for 7 years. Think about it man, you can be out in time to see your daughter graduate high school. If you get the 50, you'll never even meet your grandchildren.

Suspect: <thinking> Damn, I didn't do it, but they got someone who will lie and say it's me. That's like gold in court. I can't abandon my family for 50 years.

Problem is... there are no witnesses and they don't know squat. That was a lie. They're under pressure to "solve the case" more than they are to solve the case. So, this poor schmuck is convinced he'll spend essentially the rest of his life in prison being somebody's butt-candy, or... as repugnant to him as it is... he can cut his losses and do "only" 7 years. Great choice, eh?

Sounds like clear-cut coercion to me. Most definitely intentional deception.
 
Well, you're adding a lot of things I didn't presume. Slapping people around or waterboarding them is coercion. Telling a fib is different. It's not legal for a cop to physically harm you. They may break the law but again, that's not the specific subject here.

I've been arrested but I was never innocent. I've been accused, but I was never guilty. So, it doesn't seem that complicated to me. If you committed a crime, you should be caught. If you didn't - relax. You are just having an unlucky day.

This is a "if you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry" argument, which is an argument of fascism and ignorance.
 
You may have argument that it's not the 100% legal definition of entrapment (though spiritually it is), but you have no argument that it's not coercion.
Well phrased. I see it as a form of entrapment, but I couldn't think of a way to articulate it.
 
Well, you're adding a lot of things I didn't presume. Slapping people around or waterboarding them is coercion. Telling a fib is different. It's not legal for a cop to physically harm you. They may break the law but again, that's not the specific subject here.

I've been arrested but I was never innocent. I've been accused, but I was never guilty. So, it doesn't seem that complicated to me. If you committed a crime, you should be caught. If you didn't - relax. You are just having an unlucky day.
Year six in prison for a crime you didn't commit: Relax, you're just having an unlucky day.
 
Well phrased. I see it as a form of entrapment, but I couldn't think of a way to articulate it.

I think it's clearly entrapment. It's the police lying and conniving to pressure you into a situation where you feel hopeless less you do what they say. It's all a move to stress the individual into doing something they wouldn't normally have done.
 
Your scenario is so wildly improbable that even I, who reads lots of ridiculous fiction, has a problem with it. Lets see. I didn't do anything but somehow there are 2 witnesses to this thing I didn't do? Yeah, real convincing. I'll confess at once.

It can be...

Detective: We know you did it. We have two witnesses who have already given statements to that fact. We don't need your confession, and with the mandatory minimum sentence being 50 years you're in for a world of hurt. But, confess now, and we'll see if we can get you a plea deal for 7 years. Think about it man, you can be out in time to see your daughter graduate high school. If you get the 50, you'll never even meet your grandchildren.

Suspect: <thinking> Damn, I didn't do it, but they got someone who will lie and say it's me. That's like gold in court. I can't abandon my family for 50 years.

Problem is... there are no witnesses and they don't know squat. That was a lie. They're under pressure to "solve the case" more than they are to solve the case. So, this poor schmuck is convinced he'll spend essentially the rest of his life in prison being somebody's butt-candy, or... as repugnant to him as it is... he can cut his losses and do "only" 7 years. Great choice, eh?

Sounds like clear-cut coercion to me. Most definitely intentional deception.



That's absurd. It's the police have a suspect and need to figure out if the guy is guilty or innocent so they know if the investigation is over argument.

I am not an ignorant fascist and I will not give up my dog Checkers no matter what you say.

This is a "if you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry" argument, which is an argument of fascism and ignorance.
 
That's absurd. It's the police have a suspect and need to figure out if the guy is guilty or innocent so they know if the investigation is over argument.

Not when they're just trying to make you admit to something...anything, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand. Which is what is done. Because if they can peg anything on you, from lying to an unrelated crime, they've opened the door to exercise full force against you. Everything is a scam, a ploy, a play to drive to that point. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be hinted at.

No, it's clear from present day that what has been done is nothing more than abuse and big brother police brutality against freedom. If we could "trust" the cops with their lying, maybe you'd be right. But we can't...they're cops.
 
OK, I surrender. No more lies. Just say "we don't have a clue that you did anything but if you feel like fessing about anything we'll be glad to fill out a report."

Think that might work?

Ho: Are you a policeman?
Cop: Yes
Ho: Have a nice day

COP: So, Whitey, did you shoot Jimmy Hoffa?
Whitey: Who?
COP: Just as I thought....




Not when they're just trying to make you admit to something...anything, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand. Which is what is done. Because if they can peg anything on you, from lying to an unrelated crime, they've opened the door to exercise full force against you. Everything is a scam, a ploy, a play to drive to that point. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be hinted at.

No, it's clear from present day that what has been done is nothing more than abuse and big brother police brutality against freedom. If we could "trust" the cops with their lying, maybe you'd be right. But we can't...they're cops.
 
OK, I surrender. No more lies. Just say "we don't have a clue that you did anything but if you feel like fessing about anything we'll be glad to fill out a report."

Think that might work?

Investigation and research can go a long way for those who are not stupid.

Ho: Are you a policeman?
Cop: Yes
Ho: Have a nice day

That specific scenario was dismissed from the original consideration, if you'd read the OP.

COP: So, Whitey, did you shoot Jimmy Hoffa?
Whitey: Who?
COP: Just as I thought....

Where as you are more

COP: So, Whitey, did you shoot Jimmy Hoffa?
Whitey: Who?
COP: We have evidence, eye witnesses, video tape all showing you were there with Satan and possibly Richard Nixon killing Hoffa
Whitey: No, I was....
COPS: THAT'S ENOUGH OUT OF YOU!
*leaves in room for 3 hours*
COP: Feel like talking?
Whitey: I already told you what I know
COP:LIAR!!! We have it on good evidence that you committed these crimes, and lying to us now is committing a crime too.
*blah blah blah, several hours elapse, dude is given drinks, but not allowed to go to the bathroom, no lawyer, no break, just stress stress stress stress*
COP: Admit it, it will be a lot easier if you just admit it, we'll go easy on you, you won't get charged with X, only Y," blah blah blah
Whitey: But I said I didn't know. I mean, maybe Satan was at my niece's wedding, I don't know bu....
COP: You said you didn't know Satan! He lied to us boys! Throw him in jail, let's go search his **** (literally and figuratively)!
 
"We have credible evidence you did it" or a "witness" or something like that being okay.

there have been cases where the police went overboard. IIRC there was one that got tossed where the police convinced the person a relative had been seriously injured and they wouldn't be able to let him go to the hospital to see the relative who might die until the person confesses or something along those lines.

as a lawyer sometimes you get played into the police rumors as a way of them trying to spread a lie back to someone. Since I have to tell my client what I know even if I think it is not true what the police say and the client asks and then turns around and tells their cadre of thieves then I have been played into the game.

A technical question for ya, since you seem to be an attorney. If not disregard. Do defense attorneys bring up in court in the fact that police are TRAINED in how to lie and obfuscate effectively? I would think that factoid would be germane in impeaching police officers as witnesses and tainting their testimony, especially since the attorney would have access to the training materials and seminars to present to the jury. If not, why not? Or is their more to it?
 
:doh Oh, Maggie, Maggie, Maggie... sometimes I wonder where you get your information.

Here's an LE forum where pretty much every officer who chimed in says you're incorrect... Charged for Lying to an Officer?

Okay...I'm wrong. It looks like many states have laws that make lying about certain things illegal. Thanks to you and Ikari for setting me straight.
 
Jeez, I thought Whitey had bigger cojones than that. He needs a faster lawyer or something.:roll: You've added a lot of buse to the concept of lying. 7 hours, no potty break? No lawyer?

If they want to search your house, they can simply say you said you knew Satan. They must lie to a judge, not a suspect.

I did read the OP. That is exactly what I objected to - entrapment.

Logic can go a long way for those who are - well - logical. And intelligent. And attractive. And innocent of the charge of stupidity.


Investigation and research can go a long way for those who are not stupid.



That specific scenario was dismissed from the original consideration, if you'd read the OP.



Where as you are more

COP: So, Whitey, did you shoot Jimmy Hoffa?
Whitey: Who?
COP: We have evidence, eye witnesses, video tape all showing you were there with Satan and possibly Richard Nixon killing Hoffa
Whitey: No, I was....
COPS: THAT'S ENOUGH OUT OF YOU!
*leaves in room for 3 hours*
COP: Feel like talking?
Whitey: I already told you what I know
COP:LIAR!!! We have it on good evidence that you committed these crimes, and lying to us now is committing a crime too.
*blah blah blah, several hours elapse, dude is given drinks, but not allowed to go to the bathroom, no lawyer, no break, just stress stress stress stress*
COP: Admit it, it will be a lot easier if you just admit it, we'll go easy on you, you won't get charged with X, only Y," blah blah blah
Whitey: But I said I didn't know. I mean, maybe Satan was at my niece's wedding, I don't know bu....
COP: You said you didn't know Satan! He lied to us boys! Throw him in jail, let's go search his **** (literally and figuratively)!
 
Your scenario is so wildly improbable that even I, who reads lots of ridiculous fiction, has a problem with it. Lets see. I didn't do anything but somehow there are 2 witnesses to this thing I didn't do? Yeah, real convincing. I'll confess at once.
That was a thumbnail version, it's usually more drawn out than that. But, it happens more than you'd like to think.

You can continue to bury your head in the sand if you want, but a better course of action would be to read up on the Reid Technique, and how it's used and abused in criminal investigations...
False Confessions & the Reid Technique - Portland Criminal Defense

The Reid technique of interrogation (developed by John Reid) is used throughout Oregon and the United States, and is the highly effective method of eliciting confessions from suspects, both guilty and innocent. With the Reid technique, arm-twisting is replaced with mind-twisting. One out of four post-conviction DNA exonerations involve a false confession.

“In 1962, Reid and his mentor, a Northwestern Law professor named Fred Inbau, co-wrote the first edition of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Criminologists and law historians credit their method with defining the culture of police-interrogation training for the past half-century. The procedure basically involves three stages meant to break down a suspect’s defenses and rebuild him as a confessor. First, the suspect is brought into custody and isolated from his familiar surroundings. This was the birth of the modern interrogation room. Next the interrogator lets the suspect know he’s guilty—that he knows it, the cops know it, and the interrogator doesn’t want to hear any lies. The interrogator then floats a theory of the case, which the manual calls a ‘theme.’ The theme can be supported by evidence or testimony the investigator doesn’t really have. In the final stage, the interrogator cozies up to the subject and provides a way out. This is when the interrogator uses the technique known as ‘minimization’: telling the suspect he understands why he must have done it; that anyone else would understand, too; and that he will feel better if only he would confess. The interrogator is instructed to cut off all denials and instead float a menu of themes that explain why the suspect committed the crime—one bad, and one not so bad, but both incriminating, as in ‘Did you mean to do it, or was it an accident?’”

Because of it’s demonstrated unreliability and the frequency with which it elicits false confessions, the Reid Technique has been renounced in Canada and Great Britain. With the Oregon Supreme Court’s courageous and scientifically rigorous stand against suggestive eyewitness identifications in State v. Lawson (link to blog), the next frontier for Oregon criminal defense lawyers will be to convince judges and juries to see Reid technique-induced confessions for what they are: unacceptably unreliable.

Another example... Why Do People Confess to Crimes They Didn’t Commit? -- New York Magazine

...and another... CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Truth, Lies and Confessions

...and another... Chicago: The false confession capital - 60 Minutes - CBS News
 
Last edited:
I like having my head in the sand so I don't have to watch all the geniuses stalking around me.

Reid technique-induced confessions for what they are: unacceptably unreliable. OK. No Reid technique. How about a nice, straight forward lie. We have a witness. We found the gun. Sugar is good foor you.


That was a thumbnail version, it's usually more drawn out than that. But, it happens more than you'd like to think.

You can continue to bury your head in the sand if you want, but a better course of action would be to read up on the Reid Technique, and hoe it's used and abused in criminal investigations...


Another example... Why Do People Confess to Crimes They Didn’t Commit? -- New York Magazine

...and another... CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Truth, Lies and Confessions

...and another... Chicago: The false confession capital - 60 Minutes - CBS News
 
Yes, cops should be able to lie. They're not under oath. Why should they be held to a higher standard than anyone else? Only guilty people are trapped by lies. An innocent person isn't EVER going to say, "Oh my GOD!! My friend lied and said I did it!! Even though I didn't, I'd better confess!!"

Police should be held to FAR higher standards then joe shmo. Innocent people take deals all the time, and have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. You or I may not be, but there some very stupid people out there.
 
Police should be held to FAR higher standards then joe shmo. Innocent people take deals all the time, and have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. You or I may not be, but there some very stupid people out there.
I'm not so sure stupidity is even an issue (some of the time). I've read of instances where people have been grilled for 12 to 16 hours and longer, with no meals or breaks. Meanwhile, the police do a tag-team approach and take breaks and mentally recoup. After so many hours of sleep deprivation combined with a high-intensity environment even the brightest people are no longer able to think clearly.
 
Honestly, how many people that are innocent have confessed because of a lie. I'm not talking about a 24 hour beating. Just a lie - pure and simple. I'm sure there are a few but what are the chances? And then they have to confess more because prosecutors and judges need some convincing. Things like alibis are your friend.

God, this is awful. I dislike cops for the most part. But they have to function somehow. So here I am, on the dark side of the argument.

Oh, woe is me.






Police should be held to FAR higher standards then joe shmo. Innocent people take deals all the time, and have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. You or I may not be, but there some very stupid people out there.
 
Honestly, how many people that are innocent have confessed because of a lie. I'm not talking about a 24 hour beating. Just a lie - pure and simple. I'm sure there are a few but what are the chances? And then they have to confess more because prosecutors and judges need some convincing. Things like alibis are your friend.

God, this is awful. I dislike cops for the most part. But they have to function somehow. So here I am, on the dark side of the argument.

Oh, woe is me.

What's the legitimate point of saying somebody ID'd you at the scene of the crime when nobody ever actually did that?

If you're a detective, and you're reduced to that, aren't you admitting that you have no case, and that you're just fishing?
 
I'm not so sure stupidity is even an issue (some of the time). I've read of instances where people have been grilled for 12 to 16 hours and longer, with no meals or breaks. Meanwhile, the police do a tag-team approach and take breaks and mentally recoup. After so many hours of sleep deprivation combined with a high-intensity environment even the brightest people are no longer able to think clearly.

True. I KNOW one thing, the first and last out of my mouth would be "Please refer any questions or comments you have to my attorney. By the way have you contacted him yet?" Then shut my trap and wait them out. Ever since that video you guys turned me onto, a awhile back I absolutely refuse to speak to the police except for the barest of requirements.
 
Honestly, how many people that are innocent have confessed because of a lie. I'm not talking about a 24 hour beating. Just a lie - pure and simple. I'm sure there are a few but what are the chances? And then they have to confess more because prosecutors and judges need some convincing. Things like alibis are your friend.

God, this is awful. I dislike cops for the most part. But they have to function somehow. So here I am, on the dark side of the argument.

Oh, woe is me.

More than you or I know. Cops should NEVER lie. It comes down to a matter of trust. When your law enforcement regularly practices lying to the public, how do you trust their testimony on the stand? A lot of cases come down to the words of the participants. If the one participants is a practiced professional liar how do you know WHEN or IF they are telling the truth?
 
Back
Top Bottom