I owe an apology to Libertarian and to Fatwater Fewl for screwing up the quote. Quoting a quote of a quote simply confused me.
Badge
These are not good examples, because police officers do not make deals for lesser prosecution. That is done by the prosecutor/state attorney/district attorney. We are not allowed to make “promises or threats of any kind” in an interrogation.
Hamlet wrote:
Nonsense. Asking the question, “Would you like to confess?”, is not coercive, for example.
Badge wrote:
Do they (prosecutor/state attorney/district attorney) get to lie, too?
Sure it can be, by your definition of coercive. If the suspect is in custody, that’s coercive. If the suspect believes the police will beat the tar out of him, that’s coercive. If the suspect doesn’t know all the evidence against him, that’s coercive. And guess how many people confess if the police simply ask your question.
No.
Ah, confusion. Welcome to my state of being. No worries, Badge. I don’t think anyone was upset about it. Just trying to keep clear who said what.
Hamlet wrote:
What is either forceful or fraudulent about asking a question?
That depends on whether the suspect’s alleged victim has consented to your governing authority.
Well, certainly.
Not necessarily. Only if you have fraudulently misrepresented the evidence.
So what?
If you have a manifestly driven goal of getting a confession, why stop at lies and fraud? Shoot him up with sodium pentathol. Hold his children hostage. Rape and torture his wife in front of him.
It gets confessions in Iraq.
While that is bordering on a Giant Squid (to say the least), Lib, you are at least correct that it doesn’t objectively change the situation (i.e.- whether or not the suspect is guilty).
Well, why am I the only person who can’t raise Giant Squids? 
Because you don’t need to. My god, man, it would be like Bonds corking his bat.
Oh, I’m loving it, believe me. 
First, If a suspect is in custody, that is inherently coercive, that’s why SCOTUS ruled like it did in Miranda. Hell, even asking a question can be coercive because it implies the suspect should answer. Second, whether or not the victim has given governing authority to the government has no bearing on whether the questioning is coercive. Third, not providing the evidence to the suspect before questioning is coercive, because the suspect cannot make a completely informed decision about confessing. Finally, I won’t even address your Squid.
So you agree that questioning is inherently coercive, and so we protect that situation by making the person in custody aware of how to protect themselves from that coercion a la reading them their rights. You agree that not presenting the evidence as such is also coercive, yet you find no reason to adjust for that coercion. On what grounds?
Hamlet
Custody is not coercive if you are responding to coercion against someone who consented to your governance — by definition, coercion is initial force or fraud. Asking a question is not coercive unless the question is complex. Whether the victim has consented to your governance has bearing not only on whether the questioning is coercive, but also on whether the custody is. And there is no need for you to provide any evidence to the suspect.
No one is saying here that you shouldn’t act, merely that you shouldn’t act unethically. I’ve defined what I mean by ethics. I wish you would.
First, I was using the defintions of coercion from Lib. Secondly, the determining issue is not whether the suspect is coerced into confessing, it’s whether the confession was voluntary. It is my position that using deception to obtain a confession, much like not informing the suspect of all the evidence against them, while coercive, does not make the statement involuntary or the situation unethical.
Lib, mayhap criminal defense is your calling after all.
As far as ethics are concerned, I thought I’ve stated that before, but I’ll do it once more. I agree with the caselaw, in most cases, that the use of coercion to obtain a confession is ethical, as long as the suspect’s will is not overridden, the confession is voluntary, and the methods used do not shock the conscience. I don’t think every incident of coercion is unethical, as you appear to do, I prefer to look at the totality of the circumstances.
:smack: I’m sorry, Hamlet.
But here’s what is sticking me (as the way you state it, I don’t have an automatic problem with it): if the desire is to obtain a voluntary confession, why would one attempt coercion in the first place?
Because, and this is purely semantics here I’m going to admit it, I can voluntarily choose to confess to anything if you apply enough pressure. All that means is I’ll do whatever you want if you just stop. I voluntarily did it; that is, I made a decision based on the information I had available. Since one always has to decide to confess, of course all confessions are voluntary. But the worth of the confession, in my book, is based on the ethical considerations used in getting it, and if we can say with confidence that the cop may have lied to get that confession, then I can say with confidence that the value of the confession is not possibly greater than that of the cop’s questions.
GIGO? That’s a shorthanded way of looking at it.
Hamlet
Too late for me now, but I appreciate your comment.
A final thing from me along these lines. One way to evaluate an ethic is its “goose/gander” measure. If misrepresentation of fact and circumstance is permissible from the authorities to the suspect, then it ought to be okay for the suspect to mislead and confound the authorities.
But my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that if the suspect causes the authorities to make a deal from duress or coercion, then the deal is viciated.
I don’t buy the goose/gander comparison because the two you are comparing are not similarly situated. As to your second point, there is a huge difference between confessions and making a deal, so I think that comparision is likewise faulty.
erislover, better minds than yours and mine have considered what exactly “voluntary” means in relation to confessions. We could spend decades going over all the different variables that go into a determination of the voluntariness of a confession. ,