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.
Citicop2007-08-18T07:52:58Z
Favorite Answer
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.