# State of California lures parole violators in with offer of amnesty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613 "2010-05-16T04:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/61 "2010-05-18T14:22:59Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Let me ask you a question, and I’d really like an answer: imagine you had a chance to help out your local police department in carrying out a sting to catch parole violators. You have two choices. > > In choice (1), you can adopt a pretend name, put on a plaid sportscoat and act like you’re conducting a sweepstakes for a 37 foot cabin cruiser. Nobody knows your real name, nobody knows you’re an attorney. > > In choice (2), you use your real name and simply sign a statement that appears on the police department’s web site: “As a member of the California bar, I, Bricker Esq, affirm that this amnesty offer is the real deal and you ought to take advantage of it.” > > For you, Bricker, would the two choices be ethically, professionally, and morally equivalent? If it’s not so and either choice presents a problem, could you explain why that is? The second option is absolutely prohibited by ethical rules. But the thing is: lawyers have ethical rules that differ from police officers. A case in… Colorado, I think, involved a hostage-taker who demanded to talk to an attorney from the public defender’s office before he would release his hostages. A district attorney pretended to be from the PD’s office and talked to the man; at which point he released the hostages. The DA was sanctioned and suspended from the practice of law for this deception, even though the reviewing court found as a matter of fact that his motive was primarily to ensure the safety of the hostages, he had a previously unblemished disciplinary record and a strong reputation for honesty, and testified that he would do it again to save lives. But police do not, and should not, labor under those kinds of restrictive rules. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/62 "2010-05-18T16:21:51Z")
> [@](#): > > The second option is absolutely prohibited by ethical rules. > > But the thing is: lawyers have ethical rules that differ from police officers. A case in… Colorado, I think, involved a hostage-taker who demanded to talk to an attorney from the public defender’s office before he would release his hostages. A district attorney pretended to be from the PD’s office and talked to the man; at which point he released the hostages. The DA was sanctioned and suspended from the practice of law for this deception, even though the reviewing court found as a matter of fact that his motive was primarily to ensure the safety of the hostages, he had a previously unblemished disciplinary record and a strong reputation for honesty, and testified that he would do it again to save lives. > > But police do not, and should not, labor under those kinds of restrictive rules. So are you arguing that morality is just another name for legality? Anything that’s legal is moral and anything that’s illegal is immoral? That if the review court had issued a different ruling it would have made the DA’s actions moral? Suppose the government decided to appoint phoney public defenders. These guys would confer with accused criminals, they would tell them they were representing them and they were bound by attorney-client privilege, and encourage the accused to tell them everything about their crimes. Then the lawyer would report back to his real employer - the District Attorney - and tell him everything the accused had said. Now this would be illegal as hell under current law and immoral besides. But suppose they changed the law. The legislature could argue that it’s attorney-client privilege after all and it’s the government not the defendant who’s paying the public defender so technically the government’s the client not the defendant. A weak argument perhaps but they passed a law and made it legal. This would turn it from illegal to legal. But would it also turn it from immoral to moral? Can morality be changed with the stroke of a pen? Suppose the laws were enacted on a state by state basis. Can something be immoral in New York and moral in Pennsylvania because the law is different? Look at this on an international scale. It’s illegal and immoral for the police to shoot rioters in the United States or Canada. But it’s legal for the police to shoot rioters in Iran or Myanmar. Does that mean it’s moral there as well? Are tyrannical laws moral just because they’re laws? My position, as I’ve said, is no. I feel morality and legality are two distinct concepts. Some things are immoral even if they’re legal and some things are moral even if they’re illegal. As citizens in a democracy, we should be working on bringing morality and legality into accord. But we should do it by changing the laws not by changing our morals. The law should reflect our morality not define it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/63 "2010-05-18T16:25:29Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It’s legal, but it isn’t moral to lie to someone who wants to be law abiding and has made mistakes and wants to repent to lie about amnesty. Never trust the cops and always work through a lawyer. The cops don’t need you and expect the same in return. Well, the people in question had violated the terms of their parole, which was why the police wanted them. If they had not they would have been out on the street more or less free and clear. Now I certainly agree that they should have talked to a lawyer. They should have used Google. Either would have told them that the proposal stank. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/64 "2010-05-18T16:31:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My position, as I’ve said, is no. I feel morality and legality are two distinct concepts. Some things are immoral even if they’re legal and some things are moral even if they’re illegal. As citizens in a democracy, we should be working on bringing morality and legality into accord. But we should do it by changing the laws not by changing our morals. The law should reflect our morality not define it. I don’t disagree with this statement. But I am convinced that the specific action in play here is moral. And it’s moral precisely because of all the factors in play: that the targets were parolees; that the actors were cops, not lawyers; that the goal was to bring the targets into compliance with their previous agreements. I grant that changing any of those factors may move this into immoral territory. Using lawyers instead of cops would, because the idea of consulting with a lawyer is that he will have your interests at heart; maintaining that is vitial to our system. But a cop doe snot have your interests at heart if you’re a bad guy; he is your adversary, and the bad guys know it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/65 "2010-05-18T17:22:54Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I’m gathering that if you live in the United States that you are white in skin tone. Law enforcement is selective in this country. The US might not be corrupt as some other places, but who you are, the color of your skin and the politics of the police and judges really does matter a great deal. When I was in college in Boston I got stopped all the time, because I drove a big car and had long hair. But I was white, so I didn’t get hassled after the stop. I was also polite, and was one of maybe a dozen students in Cambridge who never touched drugs. Whatever the state of trust for the police, I doubt very much this sting diminished it. Remember, here in Alameda County we’re just about to start the trial of the BART cop who shot a guy who was face down. Whatever the guilt or innocence of that cop, I think that is kind of a bigger trust issue. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/66 "2010-05-18T17:28:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > :eek: > > You honestly think it’s moral to lie about an amnesty during war? To offer the enemy an amnesty and then renege? > > Those morals of yours are… interesting. I don’t even know what an amnesty during war means. I was talking about lying to the enemy in general. If you broadcast a message to enemy troops that if they surrender they will all be put up in penthouse suites, and you actually put them in (nice) POW camps, do you think that is immoral? Interesting, as you say. There is a new book about the great British scam of taking a corpse, outfitting it with the uniform of a British officer, a full life story, and a letter about how the Allies were about to invade Greece not Sicily, and dumping it into the ocean where the Germans managed to get a hold of the letter. Immoral? After all, dead men tell no lies - but this one did. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/67 "2010-05-18T17:33:55Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Personally I think whether it’s “moral” or not is irrelevant; it’s just a bad idea. In such an instance, as in the OP, the state loses any future credibility with regard to genuine offers. It doesn’t matter whether the targets are Nazis or nuns; the damage is being done to the state itself. > > Those prize giveaway scams, however - always good for a laugh. I think you may be overestimating the intelligence of the average criminal, but scams work only once. A legitimate offer could be made public, where the news media could check it and verify its accuracy. In five years no one will remember, and they can do it again in any case. But I’m not arguing about the long range effectiveness of the strategy - those who did it can worry about that - only its morality. Ineffective strategies can still be moral. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/68 "2010-05-18T17:48:44Z")
**Bricker** , I heard somewhere that cops specifically are under no obligation to tell the truth to a suspect during an interrogation. Is this correct? Suspects in an interrogation aren’t under oath, so they can lie, of course. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/69 "2010-05-18T18:05:35Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > So, do you endorse this practice? Or do you feel it undermines the ability of the legal system to work with the community and do its job? 'Cause that’s the question at hand in this thread. No, I would not use this particular method based on moral grounds, not legal grounds. I’d go the “won a flatscreen” route. I find it particularly offensive based on my religion that they are being offered repentance and are not. It is a lie, and a pretty low one at that. As for the argument that these people are not truly repenting or worthy of it, I waive my hand and say “bah”! They are people who haven’t checked in with their parole officers, not people on a crime wave. > [@Voyager](#): > > **Bricker** , I heard somewhere that cops specifically are under no obligation to tell the truth to a suspect during an interrogation. Is this correct? Suspects in an interrogation aren’t under oath, so they can lie, of course. The cops may indeed lie with impunity. But you may not make a false statement to the cops, that is a crime. Martha Stewart was prosecuted and convicted for making false statements. Barry Bonds is being prosecuted (what 5 years now?) for perjury and making false statements about unrelated matters to the theft investigation. These were done to make a point to the public that you do not try to deceive the cops. And that should be a point taken away from it. The more important point is to never fucking talk to the cops! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/70 "2010-05-18T20:56:19Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > In your view, does that extend to, say, putting on the enemy’s uniform and infiltrating his ranks? Moral? Not sure. It will get you shot though. I don’t know what the rules of war say about this. > [@](#): > > I’d be interested to see you address directly my IRS analogy above. Even if (in that hypothetical) the IRS were absolutely in the right and the malfeasant tax return filers were absolutely in the wrong, do you think it would be in the IRS’s own _interest_ to pull such a stunt – or do you agree with me that it would lead to the whole system breaking down? I thought I had. The big difference is that the IRS scenario was an attempt to gather evidence about someone not yet convicted (or even accused) of any crime. This one was not an attempt to gather any evidence, and self-incrimination is not involved. The similarity is with someone violating the terms of trust in the system (violating parole terms, knowingly lying on their tax form) complaining that the other side suddenly becomes not trustworthy. > [@](#): > > I think you put an enormous store of trust in the state every day without thinking twice about it. I’m assuming you’ve never been in a country where bribery and selective enforcement of the law is par for the course, and the last people you ever want to go to for help is the police. Maybe you should try it some time. Is this a slippery slope argument - that if cops could pull this on convicted felons violating parole they can pull it on anyone? I don’t see it. I also don’t see why parole violators should trust the police particularly in any case. Is this the class of people who call the cops when they get ripped of during a drug deal? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/71 "2010-05-19T01:28:44Z")
> [@](#): > > The similarity is with someone violating the terms of trust in the system (violating parole terms, knowingly lying on their tax form) complaining that the other side suddenly becomes not trustworthy. I had employees ask me this same time of question when I was running a prison. “Why do we have to follow all these rules when the prisoners broke the rules?” My answer was simple. “You’re not a prisoner so I expect you not to act like one.” It’s not about whether the police are lying to parole violaters or suspected criminals or ordinary citizens. It’s about whether a police officer should be telling lies not who he’s telling them to. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/72 "2010-05-19T01:34:24Z")
> [@](#): > > So… in the scams where wanted felons are told they’ve won a free 37’ cabin cruiser, and arrested when they show up to collect… must the state actually provide a cabin cruiser or risk losing the trust of the populace? In these supposed scams where door prizes were being offered, were the parole violaters told they were immune from being arrested if they went to the police station to pick up the prize? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/73 "2010-05-19T01:44:12Z")
I think this undermines the police more than it helps. As noted it is one thing to offer a free TV. It is another to offer mercy in return for the citizens to conform with the law and then bust them for it. In Chicago, on rare occasions, they offer a parking ticket amnesty. Basically, pay the original amount on your ticket and all late fees and overages and what not (which can be considerable) will be waived. I cannot imagine what would happen if the government said, “Ha ha! Suckers! We have you now and are going to bilk you for the extra hundreds of dollars now we have you!” Might work once but only once not to mention I think that is an amazingly shitty thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/74 "2010-05-19T01:54:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Moral? Not sure. It will get you shot though. I don’t know what the rules of war say about this. I’m pretty sure it’s classified as a war crime. So much for your contention that it’s regarded as OK to lie to the enemy under any circumstances as long as it gives your side an edge. > [@](#): > > Is this a slippery slope argument - that if cops could pull this on convicted felons violating parole they can pull it on anyone? No, it’s simply a response to your view that it’s “laughable” that anyone would regard the state as trustworthy. As I say, I suspect you’ve never been _been_ in a country where the state is truly untrustworthy. > [@Bricker](#): > > The second option is absolutely prohibited by ethical rules. > > But the thing is: lawyers have ethical rules that differ from police officers . . . > > But police do not, and should not, labor under those kinds of restrictive rules. But I notice you don’t say, “police should not labor any kind of rules whatsoever.” The thing is, I’m sure you’re hyperaware of the ethical rules prohibiting lawyers from taking certain actions, but I wonder if you’ve reflected on the _rationale_ for those rules, and whether they bear any commonality with the rationale that ought to be guiding police action. I’d contend that a lot of your ethical rules is frankly image protection for your profession: avoiding “even the appearance of impropriety,” as they say. In fact, your Colorado DA anectode might be a good example: it sounds as if the defendent, on an individual level, wasn’t really harmed and his rights weren’t really violated, and of course the hostages were saved. (I assume that nothing he told the DA could have been held against him.) But just because it was a bit of a tricky situation where a DA was pretending to be something he wasn’t, that could have introduced just a bit of doubt in the public’s mind about the integrity of the legal profession. Just a bit of a blemish on the profession’s image. And so the DA was subject to extremely harsh penalties: that shows how seriously the legal profession takes its image in the public mind. Which is not to minimize the issue _at all_. Because if trust is compromised in the legal system and its actors, we’re back to vigilante justice, aren’t we? What I’m asking is, might you acknowledge that the Police (with a capital “P”) have some of the same needs as your profession: yes, the rules are different, and individual cops are allowed to play cat and mouse with the bad guys. But the Police as an institution _also_ has need for a clean image and trust in the community’s mind. And the surest way to destroy a community’s implicit trust in you, is to reveal that you’ve taken advantage of that trust. And for you, as a member of your profession, to scoff at the notion of community trust in society’s institutions, is something I find rather disturbing, beyond the story immediately at hand in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/75 "2010-05-19T11:44:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t even know what an amnesty during war means. Well for example, in WWII there was one stage at which the allies were making overtures to the Nazi command of amnesty for war crimes provided that they ousted Hitler and surrendered, thus ending the war. Similar amnesties have been proposed, and even enacted, numerous times. That is what an amnesty in war time means. Your idea that it would be quite acceptable to offer such an amnesty and then try and shoot all the surrendering soldiers is… interesting. To most people the idea that it’s acceptable to lie about such an amnesty during wartime would would be… problematic. > [@](#): > > I was talking about lying to the enemy in general. If you broadcast a message to enemy troops that if they surrender they will all be put up in penthouse suites, and you actually put them in (nice) POW camps, do you think that is immoral? If a state body makes an official overture of that kind and then reneges, of course t is immoral. You’re saying that if somebody surrenders they will be treated well, and then imprisoning them. Had they known the truth they would, presumably, have remained fighting. The difference between this and simply executing the surrendering soldiers is purely one of degree, not of kind. Furthermore you are destroying any reason the remaining combatants, or any future combatants, have to accept any surrender proposal you put forward. You are shooting yourself in the foot. > [@](#): > > Interesting, as you say. There is a new book about the great British scam of taking a corpse, outfitting it with the uniform of a British officer, a full life story, and a letter about how the Allies were about to invade Greece not Sicily, and dumping it into the ocean where the Germans managed to get a hold of the letter. > Immoral? After all, dead men tell no lies - but this one did. I fail to see any relevance at all to the discussion. No state agency made any official overture to the enemy at all. It is completely and utterly unlike the situation being discussed here. Now if they had taken the corpse and provided it with a dossier outlining a proposal form the allied governments whereby the all German officers could surrender without any fear of prosecution for war crimes, and they then confirmed that when contacted by the German command through diplomatic channels, and they then tried and executed the surrendering officers anyway, that would be analogous to the situation we are discussing. But as it is, it is not in any way similar. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/76 "2010-05-19T11:59:05Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Well for example, in WWII there was one stage at which the allies were making overtures to the Nazi command of amnesty for war crimes provided that they ousted Hitler and surrendered, thus ending the war. Similar amnesties have been proposed, and even enacted, numerous times. That is what an amnesty in war time means. Just because we’re so far down the rabbit hole with this analogy that there’s no going back - do you have a cite for this? It seems extremely hard to believe that the Allies (or to go back to something resembling the original factual scenario - a prosecutor) would offer amnesty (or really, immunity from prosecution) to one or more people for any kind of crimes without having a complete idea of what exactly they were or what they encompassed. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/77 "2010-05-19T12:41:19Z")
I don’t have a reference to hand, and I honestly couldn’t be bothered chasing one up. It makes absolutely no difference to the argument if we just accept it as a hypothetical or substitute one the gazillion other examples of of [amnesty in war](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0q3&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&ei=GdzzS-GpB8ugkQXso9TkDQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CB4QBSgA&q=amnesty+war+-%22amnesty+international%22&spell=1). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/78 "2010-05-19T14:00:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > **Bricker** , I heard somewhere that cops specifically are under no obligation to tell the truth to a suspect during an interrogation. Is this correct? Suspects in an interrogation aren’t under oath, so they can lie, of course. The cops are permitted to lie to suspects, within certain broad limits. They may lie about intrinsic aspects of the crime, such as evidence and witnesses; they may not lie about extrinsic considerations such that the suspect may be considered to have been coerced into confessing, such as promises of favorable treatment after confession. My SDSAB colleague **GFactor** has produced an outstanding summary of the subject [here.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2842/what-can-the-police-lie-about-while-conducting-an-interrogation) > [@Koxinga](#): > > But I notice you don’t say, “police should not labor any kind of rules whatsoever.” The thing is, I’m sure you’re hyperaware of the ethical rules prohibiting lawyers from taking certain actions, but I wonder if you’ve reflected on the _rationale_ for those rules, and whether they bear any commonality with the rationale that ought to be guiding police action. I’m generally content with the state of affairs that currently exist; police are limited in the types of lies that they can tell, but have the freedom to conduct investigations and perform stings. > [@](#): > > What I’m asking is, might you acknowledge that the Police (with a capital “P”) have some of the same needs as your profession: yes, the rules are different, and individual cops are allowed to play cat and mouse with the bad guys. But the Police as an institution _also_ has need for a clean image and trust in the community’s mind. > > And the surest way to destroy a community’s implicit trust in you, is to reveal that you’ve taken advantage of that trust. And for you, as a member of your profession, to scoff at the notion of community trust in society’s institutions, is something I find rather disturbing, beyond the story immediately at hand in this thread. I simply don’t agree that the police actions in this story come near to breaching that line. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/79 "2010-05-19T15:12:34Z")
> [@Stentor\_2.5](#): > > I’m not sure if this qualifies as entrapment, as they’re using deceit to get parole violators to surrenders themselves, as opposed to getting suspects to confess. It’s not entrapment in the slightest. It’s no different from them setting up a warehouse where thieves can come hock their stolen goods and then busting them for it. It’s good police work - taking bad guys off the street. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/80 "2010-05-20T16:36:20Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > No. A contract does not exist if the only consideration you provide is something you were already legally obliged to do. Interesting, but couldn’t it be argued that the consideration that the state of California is given that it no longer needs to devote valuable law enforcement resources to look for these parole absconders? It would free prison space as the state wouldn’t have to reserve cells for these people when they were arrested? Instead of being on the run, they could join the “on the books” society and start paying state income tax by getting a job, etc. In other words, its not that hard to twist this into some benefit that could be seen as consideration, and therefore, a contract. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613.md?page=5)