But they’re not here, and it is an interesting question. 
[C’moooooooooon, Hamlet, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaase]
Hamlet wrote:
Yeah. One of them is powerless. The other is backed by the full power and authority of the world’s largest government. And you want to give him deceit and coercion as tools to boot?
Well, the suspect might well believe that he is making a deal — a confession in exchange for reality (or truth).
I know this isn’t true of every officer, but every time I’ve told a lie as part of an interview, I have documented it clearly in my report. I know that I’ve done nothing wrong (under the law), so why would I try to hide it? And if I did do something wrong that the defence can use against me in court, then it should be brought out and used.
But I think the point is, how can it be proved that you did something wrong?
[Helen Gamble voice]
“Do what you have to. I’ll look the other way.”
[/Helen Gamble voice]
Well, in the scenario given the person would have to be an irredeemable imbecile. Remember, the person in that scenario was afraid be in jail until the trial. No competent adult will believe the police will immediately release someone who just confessed to murder. Change “confessing and getting three to five” to “Pleading guilty and getting three to five” and I’ll agree about the rational self interest.
But truthfully, I don’t like the whole scenario of a murder with a partial fingerprint and a witness seeing the the suspect in the area hours later, misrepresented as fingerprints and an eyewitness to the murderl. I don’t think it’s at all plausible to believe that the police have arrested someone for murder based on only that evidence. I have seen a fair amount of videotaped and written confessions. I can’t say that I know whether or not the police lied about the evidence to obtain them,but I do know that in every case I encountered either there was sufficient evidence outside of the confession to make conviction possible (although not certain) or it was a partial confession (I knew they were going in to rob those people, and I waited outside in the car, ready to drive away , but I don’t know anything about people being tied up and shot). It seems to me (and please comment on this Badge), that confessions mostly are sought either to discover other evidence (as part of the confession, the suspect tells where the body or weapon or proceeds from the burglary were stashed and it is then found there) or to make already winnable case stronger.
Doreen wrote:
By what principle are irredeemable imbeciles not entitled to natural rights and ethical treatment?
doreen
I think the connection that I think implicit but you do not is: a confession can be a powerful inducement to pleads guilty at trial.
BTW – I don’t know if you listen ot “This American Life”, but I recently heard a rebroadcast of The Perfect Evidence (broadcast April 19, 2002) which dealt with these very questions. I am by no means discounting your personal experience that in most cases confessions are obtained in cases where the police might have enough evidence to convict, but I think the cases mentioned here do a good job of illustrating the dark side of the ethical proposition.
Damn – could a moderator add a close quote to my url tag, please?
Introduction to Confessions 101,
*DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice, and should not be construed as such. Since this is a rough introduction, actual rulings may differ in different jurisdictions. Mileage may vary. Employees of HamletCo., Hamlet Inc., and Hamlet Ltd. are exempt.
Since confessions are presumed to be involuntary, before the State can introduce a confession into evidence, it must prove, beyond a preponderence of the evidence, that the confession was voluntary. Involuntary confessions are inadmissible because of a great dislike for them, their inherent untrustworthiness, because police should not be above the law, and because: “life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves.” The test for voluntariness is whether the statement was freely made and without compulsion (the 5th Amendment’s word of choice) or whether the defendant’s will was overborne at the time so as not to be the product of a rational intellect and free will.
What exactly does that mean? Well, there are a few immediate strikes that will generally make a confession “involuntary.” Lack of Miranda warnings, a unanswered request for counsel, physical force, the threat of physical force, drugs, and promises of immunity will all make a confession automatically “involuntary.”
After those, the courts look at the totality of the circumstances to whether the confession was made freely, and without compulsion or inducement. (notice not coercion). Some things the courts consider (and this list is not even close to all inclusive): duration of confinement, isolation from family and friends, disregard for necessities of life, the age, experience in criminal matters, familiarity with English, mental ability, intoxication level, and the mental state of the defendant; the amount and type of clothing if any, the tiredness of the suspect, the demeanor, mood, accusatory stance, physical presence, and armed status of the questioner; what, exactly, the questioner said, if there were promises, exhortations to tell the truth, informing the suspect of inculpatory evidence, hope of benefit, etc., etc., etc.
In addition,specifically to the use of deception by the police officers, the means used must not be prone to procure an untrue statements, or is inseparably combined with inducements, or is sympathy falsely aroused. Some specific examples that will generally not cause a confession to be considered involuntary, if standing alone:
Pretending to possess evidence against the accused.
Pretending a lack of exculpatory evidence.
Witholding important information.
Pretending accomplice has confessed.
Pretending friendship.
Failing to tell the accused the victim was dead.
Pretending fingerprint or identification evidence.
Of course, the courts consider these deceptions in light of all the other factors in making their final determination of voluntariness.
Whew.
Let me know when you’re done with the rhetoric and want to debate.
Badge
Considering some of the specific examples you have given for when you have decided to lie to a suspect, I can only imagine that recording teh specifics of those encounters afterward made an already distasteful experience far more unpleasant. I think the pasage above speaks volumes for your character.
I wanted to take a moment to recognize the integrity and humane insight which you obviously bring to your job. While it seems unlikely that I or anyone I know will ever meet you on a professional level, I wanted to say thank you on behalf of all the citizens whom you serve and protect, even the ones who might disagree with you on the drawing of a specific ethical line.
hamlet
I lack the legal background to interpret much of your last post, I think. For instance, from a lay perspective the lies that badge references with regard to child molesters would seem quite specifically “prone to . . . sympathy falsely aroused.”
But, I gather that neither he nor the courts under whose jurisdiction he operates find such lies to override the “voluntary” nature of a confession.
I haven’t listened to them, but according to the description the first case involved the police framing the wrongfully convicted man, not lying to get a confession and the second case involved a 14 year old. I don’t think it’s ethical for the police to lie to juveniles, the mentally ill or the mentally retarded in order to get a confession. But that in itself says nothing about the ethics of lying to a competent adult.
Sure it can. After the confession’s been made, its existence is one more piece of evidence that might convince even an innocent person to take a plea bargain. But that doesn’t explain why an innocent competent adult would confess because the police claimed to have evidence that the suspect knows can’t exist, in the absence of such other issues as not being allowed to eat, sleep, use the toilet, being made false promises of leniency, or being threatened etc. And if those issues come into play, we’re not really talking about the coercion of the lie, in and of itself. We’re talking about the situation as a whole, which may be both coercive and include lies. Take a different case than murder, say a car stolen from a parking garage. Police find suspect A driving the car.He is arrested. After waiving his rights to remain silent and have a lawyer, he tries to explain it away. He says his friend lent the car to him. The police say" Funny, the video from the garage shows you stealing the car."although, in fact, there is no video.No hours-long interrogation with nothing to eat or drink, no good cop- bad cop. Just a lie, that an innocent person would know to be a lie. Would a competent, innocent adult ever confess to stealing the car in that circumstance?
I believe that this is generally true. In most instances, I have a pretty good case and the confession just puts the icing on the cake. However, sometimes I won’t be able to get a charge filed without that bit of icing. As I mentioned earlier, that is often the case with child molestations. The only witness is a small child who may not be very articulate and will probably not tell a clear story in court (if we can get the child to testify at all before the jury), there are no other witnesses, and there is no physical evidence. The prosecutor and I may be certain the crime was committed, but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt may not be possible without a confession, even a half-assed one.
Thank you, my friend. I don’t think I would sleep so well at night if I did my job any other way. I don’t know how others do it.
Not to jump on any bandwagons, but I think it is appropriate to express that though Badge has offered personal evidence into the debate, my condemnation of tactics is not transferable. The debate is serious, and it seriously bothers me, but this is not the same as saying “Badge is an ass!” or something. I don’t think that has come across, but it bears clarifying just in case. I have never had the impression that officers are oafs blindly following Big Brother; in fact, the one run-in I’ve had with the law demonstrated beyond a doubt to me that cops probably put a lot of thought into their work (more than most people, I would think). In the end this is just a debate on line-drawing, not a vilification of anyone on either side of the line.
In fact, for my own personal info, when I was questioned by a police officer in a matter of a possible crime that if what little evidence there was pointed to anyone it pointed to me, he did try to pull some things over on me. The cop really pissed me off for other reasons (that occurred long after the arrest on a different charge), but the questioning process was really quite interesting. It almost played like a movie, asking the same questions, which I refused to answer if I had already responded to the question (usually by saying, “I’ve already answered that question” or “I don’t know what I can tell you that I haven’t already”). Thankfully, though I’m not the best debater in the world, I can hold my own with most people. The cop never lied, however, but I wouldn’t say he wasn’t trying to pressure information out of me. He was trying very hard.
My friend was with me at the station at the same time, though of course questioned seperately. (Interesting side-note: we were both placed in the back of the same car, and he asked me, “Dude what are we going to tell them?” I said: “The truth.” And I meant it.) The pressure of repeated questioning about things he’d already answered broke him, however. In fact, he ended up making up a story to fit the events exactly rather than to leave explanatory holes (imagine being questioned about your lunch yesterday, for example; if nothing particularly interesting went on it is pretty hard to respond to intense questioning). Strangely, this story satisfied the cops immediately. OF course the crying might have helped. My friend, apart from being unable to maintain himself under pressure, is a terrific actor. Too bad he never went anywhere with it.
Make of that what you will. I admitted the crime I had actually committed before I was even placed in the squad car. When I intentionally commit crimes I am not going to play games with cops about it should I ever be caught. Of course they don’t know that. But it still bothers me that they accepted a completely fabricated story over the truth almost instantly.
(Another side note: at one point, after noticing I had been asked a certain question more than a few times, I noted as much to the officer and told him that this might go smoother if he would just tell me what he wanted me to say. Of course, he wanted the truth. I mentioned that this cannot be, else he wouldn’t be asking me the same questions over and over again. LOL)
Anyway, enough of that.
Now I wish I had a stronger (or indeed any) background in psychology, for it seems to me that if the circumstances surrounding the eliciting of a confession are dubious (or false) then the strength of the confession is dubious (or non-existent). But that’s me.
I strongly doubt I would ever, ever be picked for a jury.
Oddly enough, the truth or falsity of the confession is not to be considered in determining whether it was given voluntarily. Once the confession is admissible, then it is up to the fact finders to determine the strength of the confession.
If it’s any help, I’d never pick you. 
Sorry to bump my post in this thread, but I am curious: is it legal for a police officer to lie to suspects about the law itself? More specifically, is it legal for them to tell suspects that if they don’t provide basic information to the police, they’ll be charged with a crime?
It sounds like the latter isn’t legal, since it would violate the Miranda Warning’s right to remain silent. But I can’t tell from reading this whether generally the police may falsely claim that a legal act is illegal.
Daniel
I don’t know that it helps, Hamlet, lol. I would imagine other jurors would assault me during any deliberation, and the whole trial would be redone. Probably for the best.
I agree that Badge seems like a good and decent servant of the people. He certainly represents himself well here.
But I am still concerned about what Hamlet listed even thought the list seems prima facie reasonable. So let me pose a question.
Before the judge, the suspect says, “When he started asking me questions, I asked for a lawyer.” The officer says, “No, he didn’t.” Which way does the judge tilt? And why?
Oh. And Daniel’s question, too. Thanks.