Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

drpvn t1_j16oqkx wrote

Reply to comment by Traditional_Way1052 in New York City Unveils Gate of the Exonerated in Central Park Honoring Wrongly Convicted People by lifandigoosogn

A suspect in a burglary is being interrogated by police. He's waived his Miranda rights because he's very stupid. He denies any involvement in the burglary. The police tell him, look, buddy, the surveillance camera got you on tape as clear as day. Stop wasting everyone's time and confess and maybe this will go easier for you. The suspect confesses. But the police lied: there was no surveillance tape. Should the confession be tossed out because the police didn't tell the truth?

0

Traditional_Way1052 t1_j16p6s8 wrote

A suspect in a burglary is told they are caught on camera and the only suspect. They didn't do it but take a plea deal which gives less time because they're terrified of the evidence they think exists, even if they know they only walked by at the wrong time.

Should they be compelled to take a plea deal for that reason?

3

drpvn t1_j16q46u wrote

Nobody is compelled to take a plea deal.

But yes, I lean toward thinking that conduct by interrogators should remain legal.

0

PopEnvironmental1335 t1_j16rkb3 wrote

Season 3 of Serial discusses at length how many people are basically coerced into taking a plea deal. A lawyer even went on record and said that judges get pissed if too many people choose a jury trial. The courts are so overloaded that there has to be a certain number of plea deals or else everything grinds to a halt. The system is designed to punish people who don’t plea guilty.

3

drpvn t1_j16rr41 wrote

What about the other hypothetical I asked: Should an undercover cop be required to tell people that he’s a cop, or should he be allowed to lie about that?

1

Traditional_Way1052 t1_j185zrr wrote

Are you aware what percentage of people go to trial? People can absolutely be compelled to take a plea deal; for financial reasons, for family reasons, for the sheer horror that is jail. If you aren't even going to acknowledge that possibility, I'm not sure it's worth discussing. It's absolutely coercive. It's designed that way.

Of course undercover is different, they're out in the wild so to speak. If you can't see how that's different, again, I think you're being disingenuous. They're two very different things.

1

Traditional_Way1052 t1_j16p014 wrote

Yes. You should not be able to lie. Other countries survive just fine without this ability for their cops.

0

drpvn t1_j16pv63 wrote

Should an undercover policeman be allowed to tell the lie that he is not a cop?

4

liferestrt t1_j16uex9 wrote

I think that's different since it's not an interrogation.

5

drpvn t1_j16v0kj wrote

It is different but why should the cop be allowed to lie? The lie that he’s not undercover may lead others to make incriminating statements that are later used against them in court, just as statements in an interrogation are.

Edit: just got a 14-day ban for my initial comment on this thread.

2