In the GQ thread, I had mentioned lying to a merchant to obtain credit. The same reasoning that says that if I couldn’t lie to get a confession, then no one would ever confess would say in this instance that if I couldn’t lie to get credit, no one would ever extend me any. So what? You just don’t get the credit.
I think we simply have different definitions of coercive. The fact that the suspect may not take advantage of protections does not mean that the protections do not exist.
In this instance, the answer is simple – get the offer in writing and signed by a person with authority to make the deal. If a used car salesman offered to sell you a car for $100 bucks, but refused to put it in writing, was the salesman being “coercive,” or were you just an idiot for taking his word for it?
And I would hope that people are more careful when they are bargaining with their freedom.
Again, it is not coercive because the suspect can simply say “bite me” and demand his lawyer.
That’s the point to me right there. Police interrogation by lying relies for its efficacy on people being morons. You have the right to a lawyer, and that right has been, by law, explained to you before any lies are told. If you ignore or waive your rights, are the police being coercive by taking advantage of your voluntary decision?
I don’t think there is a constitutional (or ethical) requirement that the police protect you from yourself.
Sua
So it is legal for a person in custody to have access to the evidence the police have to determine whether or not they are lying about having evidence?
Because the suspect had the right to stop any lies from sprouting before they start, by simply stating “I want my lawyer, and I’m not answering any questions until they get here.” Once the suspect chooses not to do that, everything that happens afterwards is the consequence of that voluntary decision.
Hell, this is part of the national consciousness. Who are the ones that the police catch on Law and Order or NYPD Blue? The ones who don’t demand their lawyer. If these poltroons won’t listen to the Great Talking Box, there is no hope for them. 
Sua
It’s certainly legal for the person in custody to demand access to the evidence. If the police won’t provide it, that shoud be a clue that it doesn’t exist.
Sua
sua
In the legal system, based upon teh adversarial principle, that might be a reasonable ethical standard. From a broader perspective of human behavior, though, I do not think misleading someone to gain an advantage for yourself which is clearly against their informed interest meets the standard for “ethical”.
I’m missing the actual lie here. I suppose there might be an exaggeration in that there is only one partial and you might be meant to assume that the witness saw you commit the murder, not merely that he saw you in the alley sometime later- but if you you know you didn’t commit the murder, why would you confess if you know the person who saw you commit the murder doesn’t exist? And that is why I don’t have a big problem with police lying about the evidence to get a confession- an innocent person will know that the evidence can’t exist.
But for those who do see lying about the evidence to get a confession as unethical, how about this case- The police tell the suspect that the victim has identified him as the person who robbed her, which she did. She also stated she wouldn’t testify against him. Does the officer have to tell the defendant that?
I do think there is an ethical requirement that one doesn’t intentionally present false information in order to get something, though. You say we should get the salesman to write it down. So he does, and then it turns out this writing was a lie. Are you justified only then in being upset? But lo! It turns out that it wasn’t an official contract recognized under the law of XYZ and too bad you ignorant fuck, it is your own fault for not knowing the law here (and ignorance is not an excuse, right?).
“If we had [such and such], would you confess?” “Yes.” “We have [such-and-such] evidence.” “Then I confess.” “Ha! We were just kidding!” “Ha! So was I!!” So now what?
But the suspect was informed. That’s the point of the Miranda warning - to inform the suspect of his/her rights. If the Miranda warning doesn’t mean anything, why do we make such a big stink about it?
Your argument is that “yeah, I know the guy was warned that anything he said could be used against him, that he didn’t have to answer any questions, and that he had a right to a lawyer. But he chose not to heed the warnings and the police took advantage of that decision, and that’s not fair.”
Actions have consequences. Is a suspect supposed to be protected against involuntary self-incrimination and voluntary self-incrimination?
A lie does not force a suspect’s mouth open. Quite frankly, it is never in a suspect’s best interest to open his mouth when his attorney isn’t there, and most (if not all) of America knows that - some legal scholars have referred to us an a “Mirandized nation.” If I can get an advantage by misleading someone, after I have explicitly informed them that they can just ignore me, I’m hard-pressed to see the ethical dilemna.
Sua
But, Sua, why is waiving a right to be silent equivalent to an invitation to be defrauded?
The “coercion” comes when the plea bargain offer is a “take it now or else” offer- which can & does happen. Not too long ago, a conviction had to be thrown out as the Judge apparently told the jury that the accused refusing to testify against himself was evidence of guilt. If you are guilty of a minor crime- saying “bite me” can result in much more serious penalties than accepting a plea bargain, even if the plea bargain is for a crime you didn’t commit.
Sure, the suspect is informed of their rights- but then the police can & do tell them that sticking to those rights will “only make things worse for them”. Adding lies about what evidence they have only makes it worse. You & I both know that one should “STFU” when advised of our rights- but not everyone knows that. The reading of the rights only tells the suspect that he CAN “demand an attorney” not that he “SHOULD demand an attorney”.
Doreen- the “lie” in this case was that the police would imply that their witness saw our commit the murder, and that the fingerprint would be solid evidence against him.
Some years ago I read David Simons’ book Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. He discussed the practicalities of police officers obtaining confessions. Essentially the lies told boiled down to:
Waive your rights because if you get a lawyer things will be worse.
I have your best interests at heart, I’m not just after a confession.
The police were openly amused by the gullibility of suspects and in fact had a saying “crime makes you stupid.”
The book with regard to Miranda is discussed here
Well, whether they implied it or he inferred it is a question. But regardless- if the suspect knows he didn’t murder anybody, why would he confess? If he didn’t murder anyone, the police can’t have a witness who saw him commit the murder. I can’t imagine any innocent people confessing to a murder they didn’t commit.
You’ll have to explain this one to me. Saying bite me when guilty of a minor crime can result in much more serious penalties than accepting a plea bargain for a crime you didn’t commit? Only if the plea involves a crime that is punished less harshly than the one you actually committed. In which case the person taking the plea, perhaps quite rationally, has opted to take the sure ,milder punishment rather than playing a version of “double or nothing”. And actually, a confession has nothing to do with a plea bargain. A defendant can make all sorts of admissions and even a confession, and still plead not guilty at the time of trial and even be acquitted. Prosecutors lying about their evidence to get a guilty plea is an entirely different issue from the police lying to get a confession. And in fact, ( I’m sure a lawyer will correct me if I’m wrong) admissions or even confessions alone are not enough for a conviction.There has to be other evidence to corroborate the admission or confession.
Then your powers of imagination are lacking. I can imagine all sorts of things that would be flying through my head. First and foremost being: “Say they have some chump who is going to lie to put me at the scene. Can I prove my innocence? Sure, I reasonably doubt it, but it isn’t me I have to maintain this reasonable doubt for.” Justice isn’t some objective absolute. It is what can be proved to a panel of normal people. The fact that I know I didn’t commit a crime is in fact quite worthless there, resulting in some legal form of a liar’s paradox, unless I can come up with something that can easily demonstrate my innocence.
Hell, doreen, people plead innocent, are innocent, and are still convicted.
Agreed. The overriding consideration for anyone in custody is doubtless “how best can I cover my ass”?
Because it ain’t fraud. Fraud is a misrepresentation of a material fact upon which you reasonably rely. That is not met here.
The only material fact in a criminal context is guilt or innocence. And the suspect knows that fact. He knows whether or not he killed Maude. Whether or not the police has the fingerprint they claim they have is immaterial to whether or not the suspect pulled the trigger.
Next, no right of the suspect is infringed by an interrogation lie. Suspects don’t have a right to evade prosecution and/or conviction. All they have a right to is silence and assistance of counsel. They have no protection from anything else, and they are not promised any other protection. If they choose to waive the rights to silence and counsel, they have waived all of their protections, and they know that in advance.
Sua
No, it can’t. As your own example noted, the conviction was thrown out. “Bite me” cannot result in more serious penalties if you aren’t guilty of more serious penalties and/or the police can’t prove that you are so guilty.
As for the “take it now or else” lie, there are two protections on offer. The first is a demand that they put it in writing and have it signed by a D.A. The second is a demand for an explanation - “why can’t this wait 20 minutes until my attorney gets here?”
Sua
Sua wrote:
Maybe the legal meaning of “material” is different from what I understand it to mean. Are fingerprints allowed as evidence at trial? If so, how are they immaterial?
Lib beat me to the question. I’m assuming you mean “material fact” in a specifically legal sense. When I think in terms of the decisions facing a suspect under interrogation, though, teh issues of what evidence and supporting witnesses the police have at hand seem quite relevant to my ability to make an informed decision.
Misrepresenting relvant information with the specific intent of encouraging someone to act against their own self-interest might not meet a legal definition for fruad, but it meets my ethical definition just fine.
A fingerprint does not prove or disprove guilt or innocence. They may support one conclusion or the other, but they don’t determine it.
Spiritus Mundi, your ethical determination relies on the presumption that the self-interest of a guilty suspect to avoid punishment is a one that ethically must be protected. That is my beef with the ethical equation you are presenting. Neither in law nor in ethics does a guilty party have the right to avoid punishment, nor to have that self-interest protected - they only have the right to require that the prosecutor prove that guilt in a court of law.
And that right is not infringed by a police officer lying to a suspect. And that right is explained to the suspect before any questioning starts - or any lies are told.
Sua