Lying cops...

Should cops be allowed to lie when interrogating someone for a crime?

Why do liberals hate the police so much?

Ray410 said:

Why do liberals hate the police so much?

Click to expand...

That is one of the dumbest things I have read in a long time. Very ignorant. Way to make a possibly interesting and intelligent thread into a reminder of how idiotic and low thinking a small percentage of conservatives can be.

I say yes.

However, the jury in any criminal trial should be advised that cops are trained liars, and therefore their testimony in court should be duly suspect.

I also think cops should not be able to wear their uniforms in court.

Ray410 said:

Why do liberals hate the police so much?

Click to expand...

Check my lean Ray. I'm Independent. The only reason that I asked the question was because I was watching a cop show earlier and thought that the question should be asked. It sure as hell isn't because "I hate the police so much". Because I don't.

Muhammed said:

I say yes.

However, the jury in any criminal trial should be advised that cops are trained liars, and therefore their testimony in court should be duly suspect.

I also think cops should not be able to wear their uniforms in court.

Click to expand...

Why should they be allowed to lie?

Muhammed said:

I say yes.

However, the jury in any criminal trial should be advised that cops are trained liars, and therefore their testimony in court should be duly suspect.

I also think cops should not be able to wear their uniforms in court.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's fair to the justice system. Cops are professionally trained in interrogation techniques. These techniques include lying to a suspect to gauge their reaction. What I could agree to would be that, if a cop has lied to someone on trial, that he be questioned about it:

"Is it true you told the Defendant his DNA was found at the scene?" Yes.
"Was his DNA found at the scene?" No.
"Then you lied to the Defendant?" Yes.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Why should they be allowed to lie?

Click to expand...

It is one method to try and get a uncooperative person to open up.
With that said. LEO should answers questions truthfully once in court.

Kal'Stang said:

Why should they be allowed to lie?

Click to expand...

Why not? Everybody else does.

mike2810 said:

It is one method to try and get a uncooperative person to open up.
With that said. LEO should answers questions truthfully once in court.

Click to expand...

That's already the law, it's called perjury. But if it is a cop they usually only get a slap on the wrist. Take Mark Furhman for example. He lied under oath in the OJ Simpson murder trial. He didn't do a single day in prison.

I think that if a LEO is convicted of perjury then they should automatically receive the maximum sentence that the defendant was subject to.

That would make them think twice about lying on the stand.

Kal'Stang said:

Should cops be allowed to lie when interrogating someone for a crime?

Click to expand...

I'll just say that....cops are known for their 'inventive' interrogation techniques

MaggieD said:

I don't think that's fair to the justice system. Cops are professionally trained in interrogation techniques. These techniques include lying to a suspect to gauge their reaction. What I could agree to would be that, if a cop has lied to someone on trial, that he be questioned about it:

Click to expand...

There's a famous case where the police hooked some guy up to a "lie detector" which was actually just the copy machine and every time the guy the answered a question, they'd push the copy button and out would come a piece of paper saying he was lying. Lol.

Actually that went too far, while cops can engage in some lying, they cannot use props to manufacture fake "evidence". For example, they could tell a suspect that his buddy has given a statement saying that the suspect is completely guilty. They could not write up a fake statement and show that to the suspect.

im going to answer yes, but admit it doesnt seem right

im answering yes because i dont see the harm in it, if im being interrogated and the cops lie to me and im innocent it doenst change anything.

Kal'Stang said:

Should cops be allowed to lie when interrogating someone for a crime?

Click to expand...

When I think of a cop interrogating a guilty person, then I easily answer 'yes' to the question. But when I think of a cop interrogating an innocent person, I'm conflicted. An innocent person, particularly one without much confidence, could be easily manipulated into a false confession when confronted with lies and perhaps promises of a plea deal. Because of that, I'm not entirely sure how I stand on the issue. I will say that I would never so much as enter an interrogation room without a lawyer - innocent or not. It's crazy to me how many people talk to the police w/o representation.

ThePlayDrive said:

When I think of a cop interrogating a guilty person, then I easily answer 'yes' to the question. But when I think of a cop interrogating an innocent person, I'm conflicted. An innocent person, particularly one without much confidence, could be easily manipulated into a false confession when confronted with lies and perhaps promises of a plea deal. Because of that, I'm not entirely sure how I stand on the issue. I will say that I would never so much as enter an interrogation room without a lawyer - innocent or not. It's crazy to me how many people talk to the police w/o representation.

Click to expand...

hmmm now thats interesting, i was looking at it from MY perspective, if "I" could be talked into a plea and i instantly thought no, but a 18 yr old or someone much weaker could.

Damn that conflicts me too now, good job TPD

Yes...

BUT some exceptions - including ones recognized by courts.

1. An officer can not lie in offering a deal and then not keeping it. IF an officer promises "we won't prosecute IF..." generally that can not be a lie.

2. An officer can not threaten to harm a person ("tell me what happened or I'm going to beat you, put you with inmates who will assault you, " etc.

3. An officer can not tell someone "this is off record" ... as that contradicts Miranda.

4. An officer can not lie claiming to have a search warrant when he/she doesn't.

5. An officer can not lie in offering tangible benefits in exchange for information or confession - and it be a lie. For example, "I'll let you attend your mother's funeral if you tell me..." and then not do so.

6. While the courts might disagree, I think an officer should not be able to lie if it would cause extreme emotional distress. "Your mother was so upset over this she had a stroke and is in the hospital. Wouldn't you like to tell the truth and clear your conscious before she dies?" - when that is a lie.


Acceptable lies are "your friend confessed, but said you are the one who pulled the trigger" - when all that is a lie. Or "we have a dna sample showing you did it." Things of that nature are scuzzy, but legal.

I never interrogate anyone and, candidly, prefer they don't say much. They joke my "Miranda" warning is "sit down, shut up and no one will get hurt." I really don't want to hear about it, but then I'm just FWC and almost never actually arrest or ticket anyone. If something need be done, I offer some alternative self imposed punishment the person can instead opt for if he/she wishes - and they all take the option, whatever it is.

Objective-J said:

hmmm now thats interesting, i was looking at it from MY perspective, if "I" could be talked into a plea and i instantly thought no, but a 18 yr old or someone much weaker could.

Damn that conflicts me too now, good job TPD

Click to expand...

You should watch the movie Under Suspicion with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman.

MoSurveyor said:

You should watch the movie Under Suspicion with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman.

Click to expand...

I like both those actors a lot ill have to check it out, thanks!

ThePlayDrive said:

When I think of a cop interrogating a guilty person, then I easily answer 'yes' to the question. But when I think of a cop interrogating an innocent person, I'm conflicted. An innocent person, particularly one without much confidence, could be easily manipulated into a false confession when confronted with lies and perhaps promises of a plea deal. Because of that, I'm not entirely sure how I stand on the issue. I will say that I would never so much as enter an interrogation room without a lawyer - innocent or not. It's crazy to me how many people talk to the police w/o representation.

Click to expand...

Very good point.

joko104 said:

1. An officer can not lie in offering a deal and then not keeping it. IF an officer promises "we won't prosecute IF..." generally that can not be a lie.

Click to expand...

Actually, any officer saying that they promise not to prosecute is lying because it is not the power of the police to choose which crimes to prosecute.

Rather, that's a power of the prosecutor.

I heard a story on the radio about an older teenage girl who was a suspect in a death. One of the interrogating police officers made a promise not to prosecute if she admitted to the crime and took a plea deal. But the prosecutor decided to prosecute her for murder anyways, and she was convicted. Her defense lawyer used the fact that the police officer made a promise not to prosecute and her young age to get her conviction overturned.

Objective-J said:

im going to answer yes, but admit it doesnt seem right

im answering yes because i dont see the harm in it, if im being interrogated and the cops lie to me and im innocent it doenst change anything.

Click to expand...

possibly; possibly not. suppose the police officer invents a story that you've been having an affair in order to enrage your wife enough that she'll turn on you. in this case, she gives them other info which leads them to nail you for something completely unrelated. there are so many laws that it's difficult to not be guilty of something.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. if it is allowed, there would have to be very strict policies around it.

No. Lying is not professional and reduces creditiablility in any field.

Of course they should be allowed to lie. There is no need to be honorable to the dishonorable, and criminals are dishonorable by definition.

the Police dont interview guilty people. They interview people that might be guilty.

Tigger said:

Of course they should be allowed to lie. There is no need to be honorable to the dishonorable, and criminals are dishonorable by definition.

Click to expand...

mak2 said:

the Police dont interview guilty people. They interview people that might be guilty.

Click to expand...

Perception IS reality, mak. So far as I'm concerned, if the police have a reason to question you, you're guilty of grand stupidity if nothing else.