The ethics of lying by law enforcement

Great Debates
81

There’s no legal obligation for cops to respect the suspect’s ability to make rational decisions. I’m not sure why you think they should. We as society do not want criminals making rational self-interested decisions about confessions – we want them to confess. Assuming all criminal laws are just (which of course they aren’t), then the goal is 100% conviction. The ideal situation for the typical person is that the state is their guardian, but when you commit a crime, you make a decision to set yourself directly against the state. It seems absurd that your adversary should 1) write rules to make the playing field fair, 2) enforce those rules on itself, especially since, as a criminal, you’ve already shown that you’ll be breaking the rules. The state should not be fair to criminals – it should pursue them. Law enforcement isn’t a sport.

–Cliffy, Esq.

82

Thanks for your participation, Sua. It has been nothing if not enlightening.

83

Sua, how would one prove that a police officer lied?

84

Oh, and:

Just like a man! :smiley:

85

Cliffy wrote:

Oogah.

It’s that automatic, almost unctuous and cavalier connection of “suspect” with “criminal” that makes the whole thing so sleazy.

A sport? You think fairness applies only to sports? Why not allow lying in court, too? That’s not a sport either.

86

Cliffy, you seem to be assuming that every suspect interrogated by the police is, indeed, a “criminal”. Are you sure inerrancy on the part of every police department is a valid assumption? I’m not.

87

You left one thing out of your scenario- the suspect would also have to believe that the police are immediately going to release someone who just confessed to murder (since the goal is to avoid jail even for a day). And I just don’t think there are any competent adults who would believe that, even if the police told them that.

88

O.K., Lib, you’ve got me. In an ideal world, police officers shouldn’t lie to suspects to obtain confessions. Of course, in an ideal world, people would admit when they’ve broken the law, so there you are. If your entire point is that lying to a suspect in order to get a confession can be coercive, well, duh. And your post above would be an excellent example.

Now, if you want to split hairs over a definition of what is “coercive,” I fear we will be back to a “case by case” analysis. Of course lying to a suspect is an attempt to make it more likely the suspect will confess, and therefore “coercive”, but that doesn’t necessarily make a confession inadmissible as legally coerced, or involuntary. Hell, the detention itself is coercive. The good cop/bad cop routine is coercive. Not lying, but telling the suspect all the evidence you have is coercive. The police officer having the power of the State is coercive. Pretty much everything involved is coercive. Shall we get rid of custodial interrogations? Those are inherently coercive. We can only question people at their home, after we’ve told them all the information we have against them? Shall we not only inform a person of their rights, but also provide them all the information the police officer has, so the defendant can make a truly informed decision? Tis to laugh.

89

We have the Miranda rights to counter this. I would like the police to inform me that unless something is written down and signed by them or the DA, it is possible that they will lie during questioning in an attempt to elicit a response.

90

Lib, so your suspect is browbeaten and coerced into signing a confession. But he isn’t automatically sent to prison on the strength of that confession.

Yes, a random person can be pulled off the streets, and the cops can literally put a gun to their head and order them to sign a confession or be killed. If such a thing happened to me, I guess I would sign. But if I am ever formally charged, I am going to be put before a judge. I am going to be asked to plead. I am going to have access to a lawyer. I can say that I am innocent, and that the cops forced me to sign the piece of paper. All I have to do is convince one person on a twelve member jury that there is reasonable doubt about the validity of my “confession” and I walk free.

91

And we have the plethora of caselaw, as I’ve outlined above, that put limits on the types and amount of lying a police officer can do.

92

If the question is, “Is it ethical for an officer to do this?” the answer is “Not to erl.” If the answer is, “Is it legal for an officer to do this?” the answer is, “Yes it is.” If the question is, “What would satisfy erl’s desire for ethical lying?” the answer is, “That an officer questioning a suspect must at some point have already informed them that they can, in fact, lie in order to elicit a response from said suspect. It could even be added to the Miranda speech.”

93

I believe this started with a post where I said, in part, this:

[bolding added for emphasis]

Whereupon Lemur866 replied:

To which I said:

[again, bolding added for emphasis]

That’s not as clear as it should be.

What I was trying to get at is the idea that presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt exist for one reason – to protect the innocent who are falsely or mistakenly accused. This is part of the fabric of society.

And, as one of the ways to ensure this, all persons have the same rights when they are under investigation in criminal matters.

Lying by law enforcement officers during questioning of suspects seems unethical to me because I believe it is an attempt to erode or circumvent those rights and, as such, is harmful to the very society which law enforcement departments exist to protect.

jm

94

Cliffy

Why I think they should is a separate question, as is the legal obligation of police officers. I do not believe anyone here has argued that it is illegal for police ot lie ot suspects under interrogation. The OP asked whether it was ethical. That answer cannot be answered simply by pointing to case law and the adversarial system, unless one is prepared to assert that only professional ethics should apply to human conduct.

Agreed. We as a society also do not want citizens to be treated as criminals unless and until they have been convicted of a crime. At least, I do not and several other posters in this thread do not.

[quote]

Assuming all criminal laws are just (which of course they aren’t), then the goal is 100% conviction.

[quote]

I disagree. If the goal were 100% conviction then we would not bother with trials or defense attorneys or teh presumption of innocence.

  1. Not my ideal. I prefer to be treated as an autonomous adult.
  2. What, exactly, justifies equating “suspect under interrogation” with “person who commited a crime” in your ethical evaluation?

[quote]

It seems absurd that your adversary should 1) write rules to make the playing field fair, 2) enforce those rules on itself, especially since, as a criminal, you’ve already shown that you’ll be breaking the rules.

[quote]

Yes, almost as absurd as enshrining such rules in a formal Constitution and founding a Supreme Court to decide when those rules have been violated. For some of us, at least, the question is not whether the entire notion of a State acting ethically toward its citizens is absurd; it is whether this particular behavior oversteps an ethical obligation.

Please substitute “citizens” for “criminals” and let me know whether you still agree with that statement.

doreen

No. You seem determined to paint anyone who would falsely confess to a crime as an irredeemable imbecile. If I am certain that I will be convicted (whether or not I am innocent), then my rational self-interest is strongly influenced by a desire to minimize the severity of my sentence. Confessing and getting 3-5 is significantly more desireable, on its face, than being convicted and serving 10-20.

hamlet

Yes, but some of us are arguing that said case law does not meet the State’s ethical obligation. In particular, if the limitation “shocks the conscience” is the only way to prevent coersing a false confession from an innocent man, but that very confession heavily skews the very method (trial) by which the suspect’s guilt is demonstrated, then it seems this protection is pretty insubstantial.

95

In addition to what Xeno, Fatwater, and Spiritus have said…

Doreen wrote:

The point is that you have no idea WHAT to believe. You have been robbed of a basic and essential ethical right, the right to use your own mind. You’ve been removed from reality, and put into a context of fantasy where you do not even have the freedom to think.

How does a man think in a world where his ability to discern truth from falsehood has been disabled? Where everyone around him is nothing but a character in a play, and he doesn’t even have the script? Why don’t you just drug him? It would make your task easier.

Hamlet wrote:

My entire point is that if you cannot extract a confession by ethical means, namely respecting the rights of the PERSON (not criminal) whom you’re interrogating, then you just have to present your evidence to the jury without a confession. Use whatever evidence you have gathered, but don’t manufacture evidence, which is what a coerced confession amounts to.

Lemur wrote:

But unless you are politically powerful and wealthy, you stand with your lawyer against a monolithic Giant whose word against yours is like a mountain against an anthill. You are going to watch people fret over tiny legalistic details about such muddy concepts as “shocking the conscience”.

And unless you are lucky enough to have at least one person who holds absolutely steadfastly to the very ethic that we are espousing here, you are going to face the presumption that “suspect” and “criminal” are synonyms.

96

And MY point was that, given what appears to be the extremely low bar you set for your definition of coercion, there would be no non-coerced confessions. And the fifth amendment rights of the suspect are being protected by the status of the caselaw. And please stop with the overblown rhetoric and using extreme examples which, we would both agree, would not be allowed under the caselaw.

Once again, if you feel that any amount of coercion makes a confession unethical, then we can just agree to disagree. In my view, the good done from obtaining a confession (done, of course, while protecting the rights of the suspect), outweigh the use of deception by the law enforcement officer.

97

::checking prior posts for the suspect/criminal problem which so obsesses Lib::

I can’t find one in my posts, but if they are there, I apologize profusely.

98

Obsesses. You think that drawing a distinction between a “suspect” and a “criminal” indicates a mental disorder? I define coercion as initiated force or fraud. Lying in order to make a person do something against his will is a form of fraud. Coercion is, in my opinion, unethical in any and every circumstance.

99

Well, this certainly puts a new spin on it, Lib. The point is, the law feels it is not against his will. Now, it isn’t that I think it is completely voluntary, either, but you see what I’m saying here…

100

And, once again, it is impossible to obtain a confession without there existing some form of coercion. If the coercion is so severe as to render the confession involuntary, or if the methods shock the conscience, then we agree, the deception is unethical. However, as I’ve said before, I think your threshold definition for coercion ignores the reality of weighing the good of obtaining a voluntary confession versus the bad of lying. It is not a ethical vacuum.

The distinction between suspect and criminal is a valuable distinctino to make, one I’ve made throughout this thread. However, focusing solely only on the poor word selection of a poster rather than the underlying issue is a tad off the subject.