What to look out for if you are questioned by the police...
-They may tell you falsely that you have been identified by an accomplice.
-They may present you with faked physical evidence. For example, fingerprints, bloodstains, or hair samples.
-They may tell you that you have been identified by an eyewitness.
-They may even stage a line-up where a pretend witness identifies you.
-They may try to persuade you take a lie detector test and then tell you the test proved you guilty.
One of the most effective and commonly used tactics is the "fabrication of evidence" ploy. In a recent Florida case, police officers fabricated two scientific laboratory reports, one from the Florida Department of Corrections, the other from a private testing organization, purporting to show the suspect, a man named Cayward, that semen stains on the victim's underwear were his. Cayward subsequently confessed.
Social psychologist, Richard Ofshe remarks that these deceptive types of practices aren't really a problem if the defendant is actually guilty, but they may cause innocent people to doubt their own recollection of events. After all, if the police say they have physical evidence proving your guilt, you may start to question your own sanity.
Are these practices ethical? Part of the problem is that trickery by police is permitted by law and has become very accepted. Detectives are trained to turn criminals into informers. Why is evidence based on deceptive techniques accepted? Because when, as in narcotics enforcement, deception seems necessary, it is considered lawful.
Should the good end of convicting criminals justify deception during interrogation? Custodial interrogation and accompanying confessions are considered a practical necessity for convicting the most serious sorts of criminals-murderers, rapists, and child molesters.
But in the Cayward case above, where the cops falsified evidence, the Florida court saw it as an offense to "our traditional notions of due process of law." The court was evidently alarmed by the unfairness of a system that allows police to "knowingly fabricate tangible documentation or physical evidence against an individual." The court feared that such manufactured documents would contaminate the entire criminal justice system. "A report falsified for interrogation purposes might well be retained and filed in police paperwork. Such reports have the potential of finding their way into the courtroom." The court also worried that if the use of fake evidence was allowed during interrogation, police might be tempted to falsify all sorts of official documents "including warrants, orders, and judgements."
A similar question could be raised about police lying. When police are permitted to lie in the interrogation context, will they refrain from lying to judges when applying for warrants? Will they feel inclined to lie in the courtroom?
Police misconduct (and lying is usually considered a form of misconduct) undermines public confidence and social cooperation. Police deception may then cause a paradoxical outcome. Although it is supported by those who have a "tough on crime" philosophy, it can also have some unanticipated consequences. Today, when urban juries are increasingly distrustful of the police, deception by police during interrogation offers one more reason to disbelieve law enforcement witnesses when they take the stand. And this further reduces police effectiveness as controllers of crime.
Another reason for opposing deceitful interrogation practices is false convictions. It does happen that innocent peoople are convicted of crimes--not as often as guilty people are set free, but it does happen. In a 1986 study of wrongful conviction in federal cases, C. Ronald Huff and his colleagues conservatively estimated that nearly six thousand false convictions occur every year in the United States. Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, who subsequently studied 350 known miscarriages of justice in recent American history, identified false confessions as one of the leading sources of erroneous conviction of innocent individuals. When an innocent person is convicted, the price of the error to society is doubled. Not only is an innocent person treated unjustly, but a guilty, and possibly dangerous person, goes free.
Most of the info about police brutality here is excerpted from the book "Above The Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force" by Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe.
police+brutality
-They may tell you falsely that you have been identified by an accomplice.
-They may present you with faked physical evidence. For example, fingerprints, bloodstains, or hair samples.
-They may tell you that you have been identified by an eyewitness.
-They may even stage a line-up where a pretend witness identifies you.
-They may try to persuade you take a lie detector test and then tell you the test proved you guilty.
One of the most effective and commonly used tactics is the "fabrication of evidence" ploy. In a recent Florida case, police officers fabricated two scientific laboratory reports, one from the Florida Department of Corrections, the other from a private testing organization, purporting to show the suspect, a man named Cayward, that semen stains on the victim's underwear were his. Cayward subsequently confessed.
Social psychologist, Richard Ofshe remarks that these deceptive types of practices aren't really a problem if the defendant is actually guilty, but they may cause innocent people to doubt their own recollection of events. After all, if the police say they have physical evidence proving your guilt, you may start to question your own sanity.
Are these practices ethical? Part of the problem is that trickery by police is permitted by law and has become very accepted. Detectives are trained to turn criminals into informers. Why is evidence based on deceptive techniques accepted? Because when, as in narcotics enforcement, deception seems necessary, it is considered lawful.
Should the good end of convicting criminals justify deception during interrogation? Custodial interrogation and accompanying confessions are considered a practical necessity for convicting the most serious sorts of criminals-murderers, rapists, and child molesters.
But in the Cayward case above, where the cops falsified evidence, the Florida court saw it as an offense to "our traditional notions of due process of law." The court was evidently alarmed by the unfairness of a system that allows police to "knowingly fabricate tangible documentation or physical evidence against an individual." The court feared that such manufactured documents would contaminate the entire criminal justice system. "A report falsified for interrogation purposes might well be retained and filed in police paperwork. Such reports have the potential of finding their way into the courtroom." The court also worried that if the use of fake evidence was allowed during interrogation, police might be tempted to falsify all sorts of official documents "including warrants, orders, and judgements."
A similar question could be raised about police lying. When police are permitted to lie in the interrogation context, will they refrain from lying to judges when applying for warrants? Will they feel inclined to lie in the courtroom?
Police misconduct (and lying is usually considered a form of misconduct) undermines public confidence and social cooperation. Police deception may then cause a paradoxical outcome. Although it is supported by those who have a "tough on crime" philosophy, it can also have some unanticipated consequences. Today, when urban juries are increasingly distrustful of the police, deception by police during interrogation offers one more reason to disbelieve law enforcement witnesses when they take the stand. And this further reduces police effectiveness as controllers of crime.
Another reason for opposing deceitful interrogation practices is false convictions. It does happen that innocent peoople are convicted of crimes--not as often as guilty people are set free, but it does happen. In a 1986 study of wrongful conviction in federal cases, C. Ronald Huff and his colleagues conservatively estimated that nearly six thousand false convictions occur every year in the United States. Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, who subsequently studied 350 known miscarriages of justice in recent American history, identified false confessions as one of the leading sources of erroneous conviction of innocent individuals. When an innocent person is convicted, the price of the error to society is doubled. Not only is an innocent person treated unjustly, but a guilty, and possibly dangerous person, goes free.
Most of the info about police brutality here is excerpted from the book "Above The Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force" by Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe.
police+brutality
