"Officers may try to cajole you into talking, or tell you things will go easier for you if you talk, but many people have been convicted by their own mouths in such situations. The police may even offer a deal — promising that if you talk, your punishment will be lighter — but this is generally a ploy, since only the prosecutor has the authority to make such a deal stick." -The Court TV Cradle-to-Grave Legal Survival Guide: A Complete Resource for Any Question You May Have About the Law, © 1995 by American Lawyer Media, L.P., and Little, Brown and Company. I couldn't believe that when I first read that, about unethical police interrogation techniques. Several things wrong with that. First of all, the reason why a prosecutor has to abide by his end of a plea deal (once you agree, and get it in writing) is called freedom of contract. I am pretty sure. The contract clause, Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from impairing the obligations of contracts. Some people call that the freedom of contract clause. So I have heard that said before, I know. Secondly, that's breach of contract plain and simple. You are supposed to uphold your end of a contract, always. It doesn't matter who you are. And thirdly, that is also called theft by deception. When you promise something for something, but don't deliver. Like if I promise I'll give you a candy bar for your wristwatch, but give you a raisin instead. All pretty illegal, last I heard at least. Then why can the police to it? As you can see, the book was written in 1995. So as U.S. courts get more and more conservative, even under President Obama, things could only get worse. With regard to court rulings that protect our rights in these matters, at least. Plus I don't think they do this everywhere here. But the fact he includes it shows it does happen. How often then? As I said, that sounds terrible. Like Shakespeare said, thieves for their robbery have authority when judges steal themselves. Meaning we don't need to stoop to the level of the thieves. Because then we are no better that them. Right? Thoughts? Comments?
Likely best to take that quote at face value. All the rest is supposition and, at best, opinion. I wouldn't want anyone here to think they could challenge the reality based on such phrases as 'I am pretty sure' 'I have heard that said' 'last I heard, at least' Aren't people in the US read their rights when being arrested? What are they told at that time? Does the 5th amendment apply? In the UK, if being arrested, the police MUST say: Basically the detainee has the right to remain silent. So, that's the basis on which one is arrested and any change thereafter is unilateral by the detainee. It is specifically intended to protect the detainee from his own naivety and nothing should be said by him/her unless and until a lawyer acting for the detainee is present. That's nothing to do with obstructing the Police. It's nothing to do with being awkward. It's to ensure the detainee doesn't incriminate himself/herself by saying something that gives the police evidence (that they don't already have) which could lead to the detainee being convicted. In relation to the police making offers or promising deals, it should be remembered they're trying to gather evidence and to persuade the detainee to talk. Plea bargaining can be a 'thing' but it's a negotiation, usually between a detainee (whose actually guilty) and the Police, in discussions with the prosecutors. Usually done to get a lighter sentence and not done by someone who's innocent. That's my comment.
The suspect wants to clear himself of suspicion as quickly as possible and talks a lot in order to put forward as many arguments as he thinks will dispel the suspicion, while silence in the face of accusations could be seen as an admission of guilt. The more serious the offence, the greater the urge to deny it immediately and eloquently. The situation is similar in the case of customs searches; people talk a lot in order to show themselves in an open manner and to gain the trust of the other party as quickly as possible. And when friendly policemen knock to take a look at the computer with their forensic software as a precautionary measure to dispel a probably unfounded suspicion, the suspect usually agrees to get the matter over with. After all, who wants to make themselves suspect by insisting on their rights, which could lead to a subsequent house search that would not go unnoticed by the neighbours? Talking to the police is strongly discouraged by criminal defence lawyers: “The basic premise is that suspects during interrogation become engaged in a demanding decision-making process. Among the decisions that the suspect must make are whether to speak or invoke the right to silence; whether to make self-incriminating admissions or not; whether to tell the truth or not; whether to tell the whole truth or only part of it; and how to answer factual questions. In each case, Hilgendorf and Irving argue, the suspect’s decisions are determined by his or her perceptions of the available courses of action; the subjective probabilities of the various relative consequences; and the subjective utility values attached to these courses of action. Suspects must consider their available options and assess the relative short-term and long-term consequences that are likely to follow from each. The decision is thus determined by subjective probabilities of occurrence and subjective utilities – which may or may not be accurate. An innocent person may well confess under the misguided belief that his or her innocence will prevail, that he or she will not be prosecuted or convicted, and that the truth will eventually come out. Within this framework, Hilgendorf and Irving argued that threats and inducements, stated or implied, could markedly influence the decision to confess because of the apparent power that police have over the suspect’s fate. Importantly, interrogators undermine the validity of a suspect’s confession when they manipulate social and self-approval utilities; manipulate perceptions of the likely outcomes of different courses of action (e.g., by maximizing the apparent costs of denial and minimizing the apparent costs associated with confession); impair the suspect’s decision-making ability by increasing anxiety, fear, and discomfort.” “A quadrant analysis according to Eysenck's original two‐dimensional framework (neuroticism–stability and introversion–extraversion) showed that compliance was highest among unstable introverts and lowest among stable extraverts. The findings are discussed in relation to recent work on person‐type approaches. … Compliance refers ‘to the tendency of the individual to go along with propositions, requests or instructions, for some immediate instrumental gain’ (Gudjonsson, 1992, p. 137). According to Gudjonsson (1992) it is comprised of two major components: (i) eagerness to please and the need of the person to protect his or her self-esteem when in the presence of others, and (ii) avoidance of conflict and confrontation with people, particularly those perceived as being in a position of authority. These two components of compliant behaviour overlap with Milgram’s (1974) construct of ‘obedience to authority’ (Gudjonsson, 1997, 2003). The Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (GCS; Gudjonsson, 1989, 1997) was constructed to complement the theoretical and empirical work carried out into interrogative suggestibility and focused on two different types of behaviour. Firstly, when interviewed by the police some individuals are prone to comply with requests and obey instructions that they would rather not do, for some instrumental gains (e.g. escaping from a conflict or confrontation, eagerness to please another person, termination of a police interview, or release from custody). Secondly, some individuals are vulnerable to pressure from others to commit offences (i.e. they can be coerced into committing a crime). … The findings suggest that it is compliance, combined with anxiety proneness, that better predicts how suspects cope with interrogation rather than each test score alone.“ DOI: 10.1002/per.514
Police in the US use force on at least 300,000 people each year, injuring an estimated 100,000 of them, and US police kill roughly 1,200 people each year, or three people a day, a death toll that has crept up every year and dramatically exceeds rates in comparable nations. On average, 83% of people subjected to force were unarmed. US police use force on 300,000 people a year, with numbers rising since George Floyd: ‘relentless violence’ It's worth noting that pursuant to Project 2025 Trump fully intends to invoke the Insurrection Act on the first day of his presidency, deploying U.S. troops domestically to crush all dissent without congressional constraint or judicial review, which would render this discussion effectively moot (and possibly seditious). https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-insurrection-act-project-2025/
You are absolutely correct, but what you did not mention is that of the 1,000 plus who are shot and killed, around 35 of them are innocent bystanders with no criminal connections. Here in he UK we shoot around 3, all of them armed at the time. The only unarmed criminal who was shot, was hacking someone up with a meat cleaver. Over the last 4 decades, only one innocent person has been shot and killed by our police. It happened during the London terrorist bombings when a guy left the terrorist hideout with a rucksack and boarded a tube train. As he went to open the rucksack to set the bomb off, he was hit by more than 10 police bullets. Unfortunately, the house had 2 apartments and he had no connection with the terrorists. Less than 5% of out police are armed and 75% of them retire without ever having fired a shot while on duty.
That’s actually a very common piece of advice - don’t talk to the police, ask for a lawyer, etc. I don’t know that that’s always the wisest course of action, but it’s one I do keep in mind. I don’t attract police attention, though, so I’m not necessarily the one who has to be worried about it. What I will say is that police will push the bounds of legality as often as they can, and will at times break it, hoping that nobody will be intelligent enough to complain about it. I don’t think that’s as prevalent as YouTube would have you believe, however, as body cam footage is likely going to be reviewed in many of the cases which come to court and any lawyer would be salivating at the opportunity to get a case tossed because of an illegal arrest.
Here in the UK, When police are called to an incident where people are drunk and fighting, If a guy will not cooperative and refuses to be interviewed, it is not unusual for him to be arrested and taken into custody. If when he calms down and sobers up he has has not committed a crime, he is simply de-arrested and released, sometimes with a fixed penalty for disorderly behavior. I have never known lawyer bring an incident such as this to court.
Here in the UK, when police are called to an incident where people are drunk and fighting, someone may be arrested. He cannot be interviewed whilst drunk so he may be held in a Police cell overnight, or until he is fit for interview. Once he sobers up he may be charged with an offence or he may be released without charge. He may be issued with a fixed penalty notice for minor offence but usually it's 'disorderly behaviour' and, if so, he'll be brought to Court. The has been instances in the UK where they were sued for wrongful arrest. There's also been occasions when people have been wrongly convicted. They are few and far between and very much the exception. However it's one reason why the death penalty doesn't exist. New evidence coming to light many years after the conviction may show the person to be innocent.
Thank you all for your replies. Also, I was going to ask, where I live, the USA, and Detroit, we have certain rules that seem universal. I was just wondering if they are the same in other common law countries and civil law countries, and if they are based on US Supreme Court rulings. Because at least one is obviously not original intent. When a police officer arrests you here, you have a right to demand he identify himself. Then, he has to give you his full name and badge number, always. If he doesn't, he'd be breaking the law. Now, the police might still refuse. And as I said, then they'd be breaking the law. But groups like the ACLU points out, when you demand a police officer stop breaking the law, you may be in the right. But he also might punch you in the face at that point. So sometimes it's better not to, if you know what I mean. But I don't know if this is original intent though. The modern police force did originate in London, England in the 1700's. But I don't know if the police starting then had to identify themselves that way. However, police didn't start wearing badges until 1845. So probably not. Also, you have the right in my country to make at least two phone calls once detained. And last I heard, it doesn't matter why you are detained. People on psychiatric holds have this right. And children in custody battles have this right, I think. It might sound strange to say, that last one. But children in custody fights, though they've done nothing wrong, sometimes have to be momentarily detained by the police. And then they have the same rights as the other two groups, they say. Now I know phones didn't exist in 1791, when the US Bill of Rights was ratified. So that obviously couldn't be original intent. But those two rights above. Are they universal? In the US? And in other English common law countries and civil law countries? And do they both come from the Constitution?
