Deception in Law enforcment?

Question

Do you think it is ethcial for Policing Agencies (local Police, FBI, DEA, etc..) to have the ability to use deception in order to gain confessions or evidence from suspects? What I mean is, do you think it is ok for Police to tell a suspect they have evidence when they really don't? Or, how about telling one of two suspects their buddy just rolled over on him and need to get his side and not take the whole punishment for the crime when they don't have such a statement. Would you consider it a tool to help solve crime?

Is using deception in Law Enforcment justifiable or not....Please explain why or why not.

Answer 1

Yes. It is allowed and justified.

There is a line, though. For instance, showing the suspect a piece of paper, and telling them that it is a DNA report when it is not is not justifiable, and any resulting confession will not be admissible.

Answer 2

The only thing the police can't do is say something that would intice an innocent person to confess to a crime they didn't commit. Just think about it. Why would an innocent person confess if falsely told their fingerprints were found at the scene of a crime? An innocent person would know that was not true. Can it be that all criminals have never watched TV cop shows? Every trick in the book has been revealed on movies and television these days.

This kind of thing has been litigated to death and the rules for police are clear. They can lie, but they can't coerce. It's quite difficult to get anyone to confess these days because of all the education criminals receive from TV and movies.

Regular people are also affected. The "CSI effect" is now taught to criminal investigators because juries expect such conclusive evidence and tests to be available in every case. Defense attornies take advantage of credulous juries by appealing to the lack of conclusive forensic evidence.

The reality is that an innocent person will never have ANY evidence proving they did the crime. All these claims of police lying and fabricating evidence are the result of guilty criminals lying trying to come up with a defense because there is proof they are guilty that can't be explained by innocence. The lie has been tried so often that people nowadays are believing it. How is it that the criminal is now believed to be truthful and the police have to prove they aren't lying? Regular people's perceptions have been changed by television and movie conventions.

TV and movies are drama. It's fiction. The corrupt officer is in the story to create conflict. The reality is that the vast majority of officers work diligently and honestly to catch the real bad guys, not set up innocents to clear a case.

An exception to this is mistaken identification. There have been innocent people convicted because of a mistaken personal identification, i.e. "That's the guy officer!" But the police don't create false witnesses to lie. The police want the guilty punished. If they fake a witness, they are letting the guilty party go free. Cops don't want to do that.

If you think through the actual issues of your question, the answer is clear. Innocent people don't confess because the police lie to them. Guilty people do. Reality justifies this common police tactic.

Please don't live your life believing that most police are corrupt liars framing innocent people. It's not true. It has happened I'm sure. But some people have been hit by lightning twice and won the lottery twice too. Think for yourself. Don't be influenced by the vividness of stories on television and in movies. It's not real.

Answer 3

Why not? Lets not forget the integral part here. The fact that we lied is not what made them confess. It is the fact that they COMMITTED THE CRIME and are afraid of being punished. \
A really effective way is to place an object (like a surveillance tape) on a table in the room and not talk about it at all.

Besides, a really good investigator/ interviewer can get a confession without lying.

Answer 4

Yes, it is. When I was teaching, I often had to play many roles besides teacher: nurse, counselor, police officer, coach, etc...

Sometimes, I knew the kid, I knew his trademark way of getting away with certain "classroom crimes," but I needed for him to admit it, so that it was not just my word (and the kids who told on him) against his. Also, if he (or she) was innocent, his or her response would tell me so.

So, occasionally, I bluffed. I'd say, "Look, I saw you coming out of the bathroom with that black marker..." Or, "Listen, two kids saw you... [I NEVER named names when working with kids - big NO NO]."

Of course, in teaching, the purpose is to keep the kid from ever becoming a criminal, so we have more leeway and room to work out solutions when confessions are made.

But the bottom line is this: bluffing and, yes, deception, are excellent tools for gaining a confession.

Answer 5

Yes it is fine, and I have done it. I always phrase the question as "what if I told you there's a witness to your crime"? That's a lot different than saying "we have evidence you did it". Then it is up to the suspect to decide his next course of action and confess or continue to deny his guilt or maintain his innocence.

Answer 6

Yes, it is justifiable. We are allowed to lie. We are NOT allowed to fabricate evidence. ie.... You know your prints are at the scene and I have your prints at the scene. There is a difference. I am not a good liar but have learned that at times it is necessary not to show all your cards. We HAVE to be smarter than them. Think of some of the heinous crimes people commit and get away with since they have more rights than the victims.

Answer 7

First the supreme court has ruled that it is acceptable. Second, I will do whatever I have within limits of the law to catch you and then prove my case. I get lied to by people that haven't even done anything wrong, you really think I'm going to lose sleep over lying to some little cockroach.

Answer 8

Yes they do it yes they use tricks but you have your 5th amendment right to have legal council with you during questioning. At any time during an interview you can say From here on out i wish to have an attorney present. If they ask you anything else they can't use it against you. It is your right and i suggest that you use it. I was once falsely arrested for something and they tried every trick in the book to get me to say something incriminating i only did the interview with out a Lawry to see what they were going to say to me. I answered honestly and told my side of the story then they tried to get trick and i said from here on out i wish to have legal council advise me on further question. They were not happy but that is my 5th amendment right so they can eat it they are the ones sworn to protect the rights of the people so they better like it.

Answer 9

Oh, please let me answer, Is it OK - absolute NOT!! Is it legal, afraid so. Is it moral, NO!! Is it reprehensible behavior on the part of an investigator? YES!!

Example - I was assaulted. I was asked to come in and go over the facts of my case. I went. I had NO CLUE I was being interrogated. I was never read my rights. The investigator told me that the crime lab had returned my clothing and said that my story didn't match the tears in my clothes.

Two years later, I realize how stupid I was to believe this. It had been five days since the assault, two of which were weekend, so no possible way had the crime lab even seen my clothing, let alone processed it. I didn't ask to see the report. But they scared me by then telling me that because my 18 year old daughter had been out asking neighbors if they had seen anything they were going to arrest HER, if I didn't confess to SOMETHING - I lost it.

I admitted to attempting suicide after the assailant left. I still don't really know if I did or not. But it is a matter of record, because they were recording my "confession"

You tell me? Was this ethical?

Answer 10

Yes it is. We get lied to all the time. Sometimes we have to fight fire with fire. Deception is an acceptable tactic.