The theory also assumes that people have faith in the justice system…that an actually innocent person believes he won’t be convicted by a fair justice system.
Although you’d think the bright red jacket and the horse would give it away.
Actually, there are 4 words that any suspect can use that prevents police from lying to them.
“I want a lawyer.”
Well in the US you have to ask them three times, cops are allowed to lie the first two times you ask. True story. :rolleyes:
The problem with three, of course, is that an innocent person hauled in by the police might be terrified, unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the legal system, and exhausted after a long interrogation. Allowing police to lie during investigations makes sense, but letting them do it during interrogations creates a major risk of false confessions.
Interestingly, the same rule applies to international men of mystery.
My play is that I shut the fuck up until I can consult with my attorney. But then the only other play I have in my handbook is not to talk to them.
That doesn’t prevent the police from lying to them. It prevents further questioning. They can keep making all the declarative statements they like.
Having received my legal degree from Law & Order ;), the cops can lie to your attorney as well. What they can’t do is lie to the court. So a smart defense attorney won’t respond to anything the police claim about evidence until that evidence is enshrined in a court document.
Of course, that’s not to say that some prosecutors and defense lawyers have some ethical standards and agreements in place to avoid such shenanigans, but it’s not a universal given.
A very common thing is that two bad guys get caught. They are interrogated separately. Let’s say I am questioning James in room 1, and my partner is questioning Harry in room 2.
There is nothing wrong with my telling James something along the lines of “The first one to tell us what happened will be the one that we tell the DA cooperated with us. Your partner is in the next room and he’s already started telling us some interesting stuff.” Now Harry may have said “I want a lawyer” and then clammed up. That doesn’t prevent me from trying to make James think that Harry is spilling his guts and trying to blame it all on James. That’s simply good police work.
The home-made lie detector might be pushing it a bit, though. 
It is not a given that this tactic is “simply good police work.” It’s certainly common, and maybe even normal, but the questions posed by the OP is SHOULD it be considered a normal and acceptable police tactic.
Well, some degree of dissembling is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. What good would an undercover investigation be if undercover officers couldn’t lie?
I strongly believe that tactics like the one Clothahump describes do nothing except create an adversarial relationship between the police and the public, though.
Be careful when you guys come visit us nice guys north of the border. We aren’t quite as rigid about “preventing further questioning” as you guys are.
Well, yeah, but hopefully a trained lawyer (or just an uninvolved, unemotional third party) is more adept at figuring out when the cops are BSing. E.g. “We have his prints on the gun !” “Fascinating. Might I see the expert’s report, please ? Where, when and by whom was the gun found, BTW ?” etc.
Or, more likely, “Are you formally charging my client with anything at this time ? No ? Good day, sir. When come back bring case.”
Absolutely.
Phew. I was worried there might be something to argue about.
Court is where you should tell your version of events to make yourself out to be the good guy, not the interrogation chamber. But police take advantage of people’s desire to be seen in a positive light by encouraging people to tell a story that makes the criminal look good.
Can we now start ANOTHER thread about how you should never talk to cops so that the LEOs can patiently explain that since they know if you’re a suspect or not you have nothing to worry about helping them out in their investigation?
This is true.
But if you google the phrase:
“police officer confesses”
you will find many example of people who are seemingly familiar with the ins and out of the legal system who allowed themselves to be interrogated without a lawyer present.
I think that a lot of people are so convinced of their skill when it comes to engaging in a battle of wits that they will engage in one even when it is foolish to do so. For this reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if participants in Great Debates will be less likely than the average person to ask for a lawyer early in the interrogation.
Also, suppose that there is a homicide in the neighborhood, and the police start questioning innocent me. At first, like most good citizens, I will be glad to answer questions because I think I am helping them find someone else. But what if they really are seeing me as a person of interest? I should, of course, sense that, and realize that I need a lawyer. But the police interrogator might ask the questions in a way so that I don’t sense the need for a lawyer for a long time, during which I might trip myself up with statements that could be misinterpreted.
It is easy to say only idiots would talk without a lawyer, except that non-idiots do it all the time.
If they haven’t told you your Miranda rights, they can’t use anything you say other than to informally direct their further inquiries. They can’t write down what you said and use it in court, nor can a police officer say in court “but when we talked together before their arrest, they said…” - that’s hearsay, and not admissible for rather obvious reasons.
If they *have *told you your Miranda rights, that’s kind of a hint they see you as a person of interest 