This is a discussion inspired by GQ’s Lying to obtain a confession.
Could someone please explain to me the ethical reasoning behind allowing law enforcement officials to fraudulently misrepresent facts? If I were interrogating someone, could I say, “We’ve called the governor, and he has agreed to pardon you if you will sign this.”? Only to be lying about it the whole time?
What are examples of acceptable and unacceptable lies (if any)? And once again, what the heck is the reasoning behind this?
Well, I intend to participate in this thread, but I have no connections or experience with law enforcement. So don’t count on me to get my facts right. But one thing I think I know, to get started…
So, I think the example you gave would be no good.
The general rule established by the courts allows law enforcement officers to lie to a suspect during interrogation so long as the lie is not “shocking to the conscience” and does not “overpower” the suspect’s will to not confess.
Those are the facts. Of course, the ethics are far more dicey.
I would prefer to always take the high road and never tell a lie while questioning a suspect. However, if I did that, I would catch far fewer bad guys. If I had to admit to every one I questioned that I don’t really have the probable cause to arrest them unless I get a confession, no one would ever confess. I often have to pretend to know things that I don’t really know, or to have evidence that I don’t really have.
A related subject is the old myth that undercover officers must admit that they are cops if asked directly. Obviously, this would never work or undercover operations would be completely impossible.
Another scenario is not telling the suspect everything that you know. One reason is to aloow him or her make a “lie statement” that can be used against him or her later. Another is to keep them from fully knowing how much trouble they might be in. I had a stabbing once in which the victim died at the hospital. I didn’t tell the suspect that he was dead until after I questioned him, since I figured he would lawyer up as soon as he knew he was looking at a murder charge. Even his defense attorney didn’t challenge me on that, since he knows that there is no requirement to inform the suspect of exactly what charges me may eventually be facing.
So, do the ends justify the means? I believe so, so long as we have the courts and juries to keep officers from going overboard and telling lies that would cause even an innocent man to confess. We count on the system to throw out cases like that.
In a perfect world, the police wouldn’t have to lie because the suspects wouldn’t be lying to them, either. As long as the bad guys lie, the good guys are forced to do so as well to get the job done. Another sad comment on how the world works.
I just realized that I would have a big problem with an officer lying to a suspect regarding his or her rights. Can they do that, or can they just lie about facts (or non-facts) relating to the case?
The rights are well established, and must be read correctly. There is no way an officer would get away with lying about the rights (if it was established that he or she did lie about this, any statements would be suppressed). That is why we usually use a signed rights form, so the court can see what rights were given and that the person stated that he or sheunderstood them.
It isn’t important that the wording be exact, but the following concepts must be conveyed and understood:
You don’t have to say anything.
If you do say anything, we can use it against you.
You can talk to a lawyer before and during questioning.
We’ll get you a lawyer if you can’t afford one.
slight hijack…
I’ve seen the “reading them their rights” on TV many times and even had them read to me in real life. At the end, they always ask if you understand your rights. What are the ramifications if you claim that you don’t?
-f
If you are in custody and we need to question you, we will continue to explain the rights in detail until you understand them.
If you never admit to understanding, and the officer believes that you might be telling the truth, then you shouldn’t be questioned. If it is obvious you are just playing games (and if so, why not say you understand then invoke your rights?), then he may question you anyway and hope the court agrees that you really understood.
I was watching an episode of “To Serve and Protect” (a Canadian version of COPS) a while ago, and they were busting people who were poaching crabs on the docks in Vancouver. All they were doing was writing tickets for court dates, but one scene I saw was related to this…
One guy wasn’t happy and was claiming ignorance to even fishing for crabs, and the cop (probably conservation officer) pointed to the traps on the ground and said “those are your traps”, to which he responded “no”.(:rolleyes: of course they were his) Cop said that he was lying and that he could be charged with that too.
So two questions:
Was this an example of a cop lying to a suspect by threatening additional punishments for essentially not confessing, or can you actually be charged with not telling an officer what he wants to hear when it makes you look bad legally (I know it’s a different country, but I’m just asking in general).
Could this type of thing lead to an innocent person being pressured into confessing to something he didn’t do… seems like it could be a convienient way to clear up cases, especially if the punishment isn’t too severe and doesn’t draw too much attention.
eg) I’m walking down the street, see something odd on the ground sticking out from under some paper, and bend down to take a look at it - turns out to be a used needle, oh well. Same time a cop comes around the corner or looks over and sees me hunched over - looks closer and sees the needle; thinks it could be mine. Being under pressure to address the drug problem in the neighborhood he comes up and asks if that’s mine. I say “no”, he says he saw me drop it, and that it’s more serious to lie to the police and obstruct justice blah blah blah than to admit to simple possesion. He says if I want to fight this charge it will be his word against mine and that when he wins (which he very well might) he’ll also get me for lying to him. So now I’ve got a choice between being busted for having (and probably doing) drugs, or being busted for obstruction, lying, AND the original drug thing… all the while being guilty of nothing at all.
Not having the time, money, legal knowledge to understand all this and therefore lacking the will to go through a court battle, I opt for the lesser charge on the spot and hope to just get a small fine. Oops - turns out that in this town confessing to that is a lot more serious than the cops said it was (lie #2), and now I’m riding down to the station in handcuffs looking forward to spending the next 6 months in jail.
Might this be an example of how the law can go wrong, (and is it not a double standard that the cops can lie to you but you can’t lie to the cops) or am I misinterpretting my law here?
While you can be charged with lying to the police (usually under an obstructing charge or something similar), you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. That’s one of the basic rights in the Constitution.
So, the officer on the TV show was bluffing. If the person then did admit the traps were his, and the officer charged him based on that, it would most likely be thrown out of court. Assuming, of course, that the confession were properly challenged. Unfortunately, that probably means he has to get an attorney, since no one stands much of a chance representing themselves in a criminal court.
Actually, I believe the crabber could be charged with obstruction of justice, because the crabber had another, nonself-incriminating option – silence.
OTOH, the elements of obstruction of justice may not have been met in this instance, as the officer knew the traps were the crabbers. IIUC [if I understand correctly], to obstruct justice the lie must materially affect the course of the investigation by, for example, sending the police off on a wild goose chase.
Sua
By way of a sidebar, this would not be permitted in Canada. Here, the right to counsel includes the right to be fully aware of the jeopardy one faces, to allow a fully informed decision whether to exercise the right to counsel.
In facts very similar to what Badge has described, our Supreme Court held that as soon as the police learned that the victim of the assault died, they had to notify the alleged assailant, who was being interrogated at the time.
Slight hijack. How reaslistic are the interrogation scenes in NYPD blue?
Okay, what if, at the beginning of each investigaiton, the police told the suspect, “You know, we’re allowed to lie to you. Now, let’s get started.” Would that sit well with you?
Libertarian, I guess the short answer is that lying may be unethical, but it is not illegal. I would also add that not everyone agrees that lying is always ethically wrong, that there’s no black and white position on the ethics of lying.
We often place police officers in situations where not lying may hamper their ability to protect themselves (e.g. - undercover officer), or where lying may help them to determine the truth of what happened (e.g. - interrogations). So lying per se is not prohibited to police officers.
At the same time, the courts generally recognize that the more police rely on tactics such as lying, the more carefully the courts must scrutinse their actions to ensure there hasn’t been a breach of due process, to assess their credibility, and so on. Thus, there are strict requirements governing the admissibility of confessions (at least in the Anglo-Canadian common law systems; don’t know about the U.S.), the right to counsel, and related issues.
Every system has to balance the need for law enforcement, which may require ethically murky conduct, against the overall reputation of the administration of justice.
I’m afraid this is turning into a “Ask the Police Officer” thread, but, Badge, as long as I’ve got you here, let me ask you a question I asked once before on these boards, but never got a very good answer.
When I see someone being read their rights, they generally go something like this, “You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right anything you say can and will be held against you…” I can understand the “can be held against you” part but “will be held against you”? What’s up with that? It makes it sound like if you say “Yep, I’m six feet tall, just like it says on my driver’s license” then the system is obligated to somehow use that against you.
Northern Piper wrote:
I’ll be the first to agree that lying is not unethical per se. Libertarianly, the ethics of lying (or fraud) is sharply defined. When initiated, it is a coercion; but when used in defense or retaliation, it is ethically neutral.
My problem is not with cops lying to protect lives (theirs and others). My problem is with lying as a coercive tool.
Despite all that Badge has written, I see nothing ethical about lying to a man that you have captured and rendered threatless. To me, that is not law enforcement; rather, it is enforcement of tyranny.
What of that Man’s future threats? Should we not seek the truth through all possibilites in order to correctly ascertain the level of threat, and the correlating level of punishment?
How is it coercive? That’s the key here - if a particular lie was indeed coercive, then Constitutional protections would prevent the police from using that lie and/or any answer being used against the suspect.
But the type of lies used in interrogations aren’t coercive, quite literally – no harm comes to the suspect if he/she ignores the lie.
Sua
What happens if you’ve been framed, and you confess because you’re scared and rather take the lighter sentence?
It’s not coercive because the suspect always has three options in responding to a lie from a police officer… the truth, a lie, or the silence/“I want my lawyer” option.
Because of that third option, any lie told by the police (other than lies that are actually threats, e.g. “Confess our we’ll shoot your mother”) can’t be coercive. And under Miranda, the suspect has to be informed of Option #3 before questioning starts and any lies are told.
I do have a problem with police lying to juvenile suspects, because there caan be a question of whether a junvenile really understood Option #3, but other than that, I don’t see an issue.
Sua