Actually, I’ve often wondered about the reason for that phrase as well. I’ve always assumed it to reinforce that any incriminating statements are sure to be used in court.
Unfortunately, it does happen sometimes, and this is definitely a case where the tactics are unethical. We’ve all heard of innocent people confessing (sometimes to very serious crimes) due to tactics used by the police.
Few things in law enforcement make me more angry (another would be when investigators and prosecutors ignore exculpatory evidence or other suspects because they have blindly focused on one suspect or theory of the crime).
I once had an officer from another agency assist me on a case, and he got a woman to confess to something that I later proved that she didn’t do. I asked her why she confessed, and she said that he told her he wouldn’t take her to jail if she just confessed. And he still booked her, too!. I reported him to his superiors.
The person may be “captured and rendered threatless” (that seems like a pretty loaded phrase), but sometimes without a confession they will be back on the street as soon as the interview is over.
I’m the first to admit that in a pure ethics, any lie is unethical. Practically, however, we are forced to balance the good of society (again, a very loaded and debatable concept) against such pure ethics. If I never lie to a suspect in an interview, many will not be punished for the crimes they have committed and may go on to commit more crimes.
A perfect example of this is child molesters. In such cases, the victim is often a poor witness, and there is rarely physical evidence of the crime. A confession is almost always the only way to be sure of a conviction. And even if we have a solid case without it, getting a confession often assures that the case will not have to go to court and the victim won’t have to go through the trauma of testifying. I think those are very important reasons to abandon pure ethics in favor of getting the job done.
Believe me, the lies I have to tell in such interviews are very hard on me. I have to convince this man that I understand why he would do such a thing, and that I completely believe him when he tells me that a six-year-old girl came on to him. I have to make him believe that I am his friend and just want to help him get this burden off his chest.
I usually need a long, hot shower after those interviews.
That was in response to Libertarian, who said:
**
I don’t envy you your job, Badge. It must be hell to be in a situation such as you describe.
But… should the specific crime under investigation determine the ethical validity of the methods of interrogation?
Can a justice system theoretically based on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” work with a sliding ethical scale? Or does it contradict itself, and, in doing so, become vulnerable to abuse and therefore a danger to the rights of the individuals it was designed to protect?
No, I don’t think the specific crime should be the basis for that decision. That just opens another avenue of debate as to what crimes would justify these tactics.
I don’t think that these tactics in any way relate to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, except in that we are making the best effort to prove that the guilty person is indeed guilty.
I do agree that this makes the entire system vulnerable to abuse, and it is often abused very badly in this way. We have to hope that the system will prevent and punish those who abuse it.
In the end, though, lying occasionally is a necessary tool. To completely prevent the use of these tactics is simply impratical in the real world.
That gives me a good idea . . .
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=147494
[…sigh…]
For the record, I did not write what Badge quoted and attributed to me in this post.
Looks like a typical case of accidental misattribution caused by responding to several different posters, Lib.
[sub]–But hang on a moment; I think I can get Badge to confess to intentional misquoting… sshhh[/sub]
[blatant lie]Erm, Badge, we’ve downloaded information from your hard drive and have evidence that you deliberately substituted “Libertarian” for “Fatwater Fewl” in your previous post, to discredit Fatwater Fewl. If you sign this confession, I’m pretty sure we can swing a probated sentence.[/blatant lie]
I just want to point out that I’m not Libertarian – I mean, I’m not the poster with that screen name … although my political philosophies may lean towards libertarianism.
Anyway, I do think the tactic of lying during interrogation does relate to “innocent until proven guilty”. It specifically relates if the police officer holds an assumption of guilt on the part of the suspect and, as a result, lies in order to find ways to make that assumption appear valid.
Hmmm, maybe “belief” would be a better word than “assumption”, because I do realize that in order to function police officers must assume, or hypothesize, that a certain person committed a certain act and then search for proof of of that assumption.
But lying to get a confession indicates to me a belief in the guilt of the suspect; and, once one part of the system acts because of a belief that a person is guilty without proof of that guilt (and, if lying does not necessarily indicate a belief that the suspect is guilty, it does indicate a willingness to let the ends justify the means which I believe is contrary to the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty.” Lying to a suspect indicates a laziness in methodology, an attempt to avoid the burden of proof by shifting that onus to the suspect’s innocence.), the system has been corrupted. The corruption may be containable, but it exists and poses a danger.
jm
On previewing, I see that Libertarian and xenophon41 have already addressed the matter of post attribution. I think too slowly.
But of course the cops must BELIEVE that the person charged with the crime commited the crime, otherwise they wouldn’t charge them. This isn’t a violation of the presumption of innocence, since the cops have no (legal) power to punish the person they believe commited the crime.
The cops are free to presume someone guilty. It is the judges and juries that must presume someone innocent.
Xeno wrote:
I agree. I didn’t report the post or complain. I just wanted to set the record straight.
I am still dazed that someone wanted to defend against a “future” threat.
Ah!
Cross-posting from an Iraq thread, are you? 
Sua
I’m not sure how you can argue that because a suspect retains the right to remain silent a lie by interrogators is not coercive. By misrepresenting the evidence, seriousness of consequences, etc. the interrogators skew a suspects ability to form decisions of rational self-interest.
I believe it is a generally accepted idea that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain a confession. I think it is also agenerally accepted truth that sometimes people confess to crimes that they did not commit. I think that makes a compelling, though not air-tight, argument that the methods of interrogation have served to coerce a confession from a suspect who would have no ordinary motive to accept culpability.
Is it ethical? I can think of instances in which I would say yes, but I think those are the exceptions to the rule. “The ends justify the means” is not an argument that I like to see used by a state in seeking to imprison (or execute) its citizens.
I do accept the need for undercover operations, though, and I certainly would not argue that an undercover investigator must not mislead the targets of his investigation. Lies during custodial interrogation are a different matter. The safety of the officer is not at risk. The only question is whether the officer will be able to persuade a suspect to confess. If that cannot be done using the facts in evidence, then perhaps it shouldn’t be done at all.
Well y’know, Xen, in all likelihood, you are going to disagree with me about a political point sometime in the future. I’m pondering whether to go ahead begin my Pit rant now. 
It’s been a long time since I’ve been politically pitted, Lib. Might be fun!
Tell you what; you take the von Mises part and I’ll pretend to channel Rawls. (For a twist, though, I’ll channel Lou Rawls.)
[/hijack]
Sure such lies can still be coercive. Example one: They come to you, and say your partner has already confessed (a lie), but if you also confess AND promise to testify against him they will cut you a deal.
Example two: Being homeless, you found a body, and stole the watch from it. The Police say the evidence against you for murder is overwhelming, they have eyewitnesses & fingerprints (lies- they have one partial, and a witness that says he saw you in that alley hours after the murder). They offer to allow you to “cop” to Manslaughter and 3>5, instead of Murder 1 and Life. You confess to Manslaughter. But your real crime is petty theft. Not only does the lie convict you of murder, but the real killers gets away with it.
I find that an interesting test. Can one of the lawyers present provide an example where a confession was thrown out on the grounds that a lie “overpowered teh suspects will to not confess”. I mean, isn’t that pretty much the very reason why a police oficer would lie during an interrogation? Badge, am I misreading what you have posted? Isn’ it specifically to obtain a confession from a suspect who does not wish to confess in the face of the evidence that you find yourself deciding to lie?
For that matter, what if they told him that he wasn’t really signing a confession, but just some routine paperwork for his release? I know that sounds ridiculous, but an awful lot of people sign things that way: they don’t read it; they just take the word of the guy who’s explaining what it is.
The only lawyer I’ve ever talked to with respect to him defending me said, “Never admit anything. Make the state prove it. Hell, don’t admit to your name without a lawyer present if that’s what it takes to get the message through.” Must be he knew about police lying just to obtain confessions.
I’d have to say that, “Well, hey, the bad guys lie, so we hafta’ too” isn’t all that convincing to me.
This isn’t what we’re asking, though. We’re not asking you to lay all the facts bare, we’re asking you to not lie. The difference doesn’t seem that subtle to me.
In what sense is a lie used to gather a confession not coercive? It is clearly the deciding factor in many confessions (as you say). Were it not for the lie, they would not confess. As such, one is intentionally misrepresenting something in order to achieve an effect. Imagine a salesperson using these criteria for getting a sale. How is this case ethically different?
Of course, police are free to presume guilt. However, they are not free to allow that presumption to interfere with how they proceed in an investigation. Why do they investigate? To try and ascertain the facts of a matter.
But a police officer’s belief or disbelief of a person’s guilt or innocence of criminal activity has no bearing whatsoever on that person’s actual guilt or innocence. What does have bearing? “Just the facts, ma’am”.
For a police officer to state he knows something that he doesn’t know, or to say something happened that did not happen, in order to obtain a confession of guilt is a perversion of justice.
You see what I’m saying? The burden of proof is upon society. Deceiving a person into providing that proof through the details of his confession is not an acceptable manner of carrying that burden – in fact, it is shirking that burden.