My brother is in prison for murder. He did it and confessed to it. Still, during the trial the detectives saw fit to lie under oath, and bring forth evidence of his character (his diary) obtained illegally (they lied and said it was obtained via a neighbor who found it in a trash can in his house 0_o). All of this even though they had an open and shut case. It blew my mind that in a case that they had in the bag and where the evidence of the crime itself was enough to put him away forever they still did all of that. The story of the diary was especially ridiculous. It's not like the detectives told some whoppers just to make things easier on themselves. They lied about all sorts of small things, like how his arrest actually happened. From that I learned to fear the system. If they'll do that with a slam dunk case, what will they do to get a conviction when the case is a tough one? How many men has this state (Texas) executed as a result of this system?
It's quite fascinating really. The police officer he has come up to speak talks about some of the tricks they use to get people to confess and they talk about word tricks they use to get convictions even of innocent people. It's pretty terrifying.
What I find interesting is how many TV shows depict suspects running their mouths to the police like they're all buddies. You're NEVER supposed to do that. Even innocent people can very easily incriminate themselves, as they show in the above video.
Speaking of Texas and executions, have you ever read about Todd Willingham?
Willingham was convicted of "multiple infanticide" for burning his house down with his daughters still inside. He maintained his innocence until the end, and finally found a fire investigator to review the case shortly before he was scheduled to be executed. The investigator provided conclusive evidence that he DID NOT start the fire, but the Board of Pardons and Paroles apparently didn't even read it:
“The only reasonable conclusion is that the governor’s office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ignored scientific evidence.”
And so, sadly, he was executed.
There are so many WTFs in this case, which is probably partly why the article is so long. One thing that stood out is how the witness testimony changed from "he was frantically trying to put the fire out" to "he didn't seem to be doing much of all" after he was charged with starting the fire (the witnesses became biased). And how the fire investigators could be high school drop outs with minimal training, and how they used gut feelings and super outdated science while investigating the case. Their investigation is really what caused him to be convicted. Pretty sad story, and it seems to happen a lot like this, especially in Texas.
My sister in law is a public defender, she has managed to get cops that lie under oath fired. We're not talking capital crimes here, we're talking stupid traffic citations where the officer would rather lie than admit they made a bad call.
Her belief is that lying is like cocaine, you use it once to get through the case because you know that even though its not strictly the truth the right thing will happen, and then you use it because you really didn't prepare enough, and suddenly its not a 'big deal' in your mind, after all these are people committing crimes right? We're protecting the 'good' people from these scumbags. And you lose yourself.
Why managing to get them fired is considered a good result?
Perjury is a serious crime and should be prosecuted as such.
Cops should [be made to] understand that lying in court even in small cases carries a risk of criminal charges (in USA, up to 5 years IIRC) instead of internal disciplinary action.
Yes it is, which is why I really felt President Clinton should have resigned when he was proven to have perjured himself in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. But as we saw with him, Barry Bonds, and others, it is not effectively prosecuted. This is in part because the English language is so malleable to interpretation that 'reasonable doubt' becomes a massive impediment to conviction.
I was arrested when I was 18 after a guy I was with was caught selling mdma at a gathering in the desert. The police report was filled with lies. The officers approached me during the night(it was 10F) and asked to sit in my car. I was having a heart to heart with my girlfriend but obliged because they were obviously cold and being welcoming is part of that subculture. They made some lewd inappropriate comments about my gf and then asked to buy drugs. I told them I didnt have any. They begged. I said sorry I dont have any.
I read the police report and they wrote that i wanted to sell them drugs but told them I had just taken the last of mine and recommended them to my friend.
They were rude and total dicks to everyone. In court the judge admonished them for grinding up on underage girls on their surveillance videos.
Wholeheartedly agree with the erosion of personal freedoms in the favor of laws made by people 'who know better.' Speeding is a perfect example--any law that 80% of people on the freeway break is a terrible law.
any law that 80% of people on the freeway break is a terrible law.
They are actually supposed to be set so that 80-90% of the people are obeying the limit (see MUTCD), but that often results in limits that are perceived as being too high by communities.
Why have speed limits at all then? I've heard anecdotes of professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets because they know how to handle a vehicle at that speed (and presumably had the good sense not to be driving way faster than traffic if there even was any) and its certainly possible to get a speeding ticket when traveling under the limit if conditions do not permit.
Seems to me that they should be treated as good-weather guidelines (legally; that's already more or less the case in practice), and focus on the people driving recklessly - weaving in and out of traffic, going 10mph+ faster than everyone else, tailgating, etc.
Technically speaking, some states don't, at least not hard limits. For example, in Massachusetts, on roadways under MassHighway (well, now known as the MassHighway division of MassDOT) jurisdiction, speeds are supposed to be "reasonable and proper" (MGL Chapter 90, Section 17). Exceedance of posted speed limits are "prima facie" evidence of speeding, but not conclusive evidence, so it's technically possible to exceed the posted speed limit but not break the law if you can demonstrate that your speed is "reasonable and proper" (of course if you're not a lawyer or someone willing to spend a lot of money, this argument is not likely to fly in front of a magistrate). The MassPike and MassDCR roads require strict adherence to posted limits.
There are several other states that use "reasonable and proper" similar to MA, but I'd have to look them up to give a list. For the other states, I suspect the absolute limits are in place for simplicity.
> professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets
That seems unlikely.
> Why have speed limits at all then?
To reduce the frequency and severity of crashes.
To give people a baseline for safe speed. If most people's usual driving speed is "10 mph over the limit," then the effective speed limit is simply N+10 mph, where N is the number on the signs.
> tailgating
It's easy to deal with this effectively on your own. If you're being tailgated, just take your foot off the gas until you're 10mph under the limit. The tailgater will pass you at the very first opportunity. It's magic!
> If you're being tailgated, just take your foot off the gas until you're 10mph under the limit.
This advice (slow down when tailgated) is also what's advised at MSF training courses for motorcycle licenses also. It sounds counter-intuitive, but in addition prompting the tailgater to pass it also gives you more space to maneuver if things get dicey.
If most people's usual driving speed is "10 mph over the limit,"
then the effective speed limit is simply N+10 mph,
where N is the number on the signs.
A big "if". As I recall, when speed limits were raised on some of the highways in Maryland from 55 mph to 65 mph, the traffic kept going at 72 mph.
In a society where everybody drives, speeds are set not so much by some kind of a law but more by the natural course of human actions.
Yep, traffic is largely self-regulating. Most people know how fast it's safe to drive and do it anyway. The others don't care about the "speed limit". Net effect, the actual posted speed limit and associated laws and corrupt bureaucracy are totally useless.
And never mind that "speed limits" are reverse engineered from observations of the natural speed of traffic in a given area in the first place.[1]
> > professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets
> That seems unlikely.
It happens sometimes. A co-worker of a friend of mine was speeding in excess of 100 mph in a dodge viper and was pulled over and charged with reckless driving. However, the driver had completed the dodge viper training school so the judge ruled for him, and the officer had neglected to add any additional charges such as speeding.
Sadly sometimes tailgaters don't get off your ass if you slow down. I slowed down to 30 once on a 70mph stretch before one guy finally passed while flipping me the bird.
My new rule is to just floor it to get other cars in between me and them.
To be fair its really uncommon, but it has stuck out quite a bit in my mind.
The amusing part to me was he turned left only about a mile up so there was no real reason to stay tailgating (no off ramps up and coming). Just to note that I wasn't being a dick about things either.
Because speed kills, plain and simple. It reduces the time you have to react to any problem, increases your braking distance and increases the damage and lethality of any impact. The latter two are affected with the square of speed.
There are very, very good reasons to have a universal hard speed limit.
The whole system is blatantly fucked up and I'm more stunned by people's non-chalant reaction or 'it's the law reaction'.
I live in a small town in New Jersey where my mom works for the town.. recently there was a police 'strike' around contract negotiations, where, to prove the town should give them a raise they stopped writing tickets to show the town how much money the police department makes them. What this means to me (and I'm pretty sure is obvious) is that they stopped writing stupid 'money making' tickets and were actually... doing their job of protecting its citizens.
The worst thing about all of this is I have no idea how to fix it.
I can rant on shit like this for a long time but I'll ask one question that hopefully someone will be inclined to share their opinion.
I think one major problem (that most seem to disagree about) is the slowly creeping loss of personal freedom 'for the publics best interest' I think speed limit's are against this freedom, is it really that inconceivable to believe we can't judge what is a safe speed? (obviously reckless driving would still be a thing that police would be used for) or even smaller... Why is it a law that I must wear a seatbelt? Or even drugs.. why does any law care if I want to smoke crack?
I generally agree with this, but it gets tricky when you factor in social services.
If a society decides that it should support health or medical services with public funds then there is a line of logic that conditions based on that support (such as a seatbelt laws, drug laws, or even banning soda) should be allowed.
I don't agree with this, but if I was arguing for that side that would be how I'd frame it.
The seatbelt law is particularly weird to me considering that motorcycles are perfectly legal.
On a motorbike you want the rider to separate from the bike, if a bike is rolling and the rider is attached to it they are going to get really mangled.
I didn't mean to imply that the motorcycle rider should be strapped to the bike, but rather that if the seat belt law is about safety the legality of motorcycles seems a bit hypocritical.
Although your point about not injuring other passengers within the car could be part of it.
Interesting point about motorcycles. I wonder though, would motorcycles actually benefit from seatbelts? In an accident a car will provide a substantial amount of protection to the driver, so it's in the driver's interest to be fastened in place. Perhaps it's actually better for the motorcyclist to be separated from the bike as opposed to bring dragged along..
This is getting a bit off topic, but no, motorcycles would not benefit from seatbelts. They would actually be a huge detriment. You're right with the idea that it is advantageous to be separated from the motorcycle in a crash. Not just due to not wanting to be dragged along however.
When I started riding a motorcycle several years back I took a proper safety and rider training course. One of the strategies that could be employed for an imminent crash was literally referred to as a "Superman Dive". Basically, you see you're about to hit a car/truck so you put your feet on the footpegs, hands on the gas tank and jump over the vehicle you're about to hit and then do your best to roll when you hit the ground on the other side. A seatbelt would naturally prevent this.
While hitting the ground on the other side of the vehicle and then going for a roll is far from a good day, it beats going from whatever-speed-you're-at to zero instantly when you're flung into the other vehicle. Since there is no metal box around you on a motorcycle, rather than be a safety feature, a seatbelt would limit or prevent actions that could seriously reduce the chances and severity of injuries.
Just because people are insane on motorcycles doesn't mean the state should pay for the health care of people in cars who could wear a seatbelt. The legality of motorcycles is a separate issue.
And lets be honest. We already have to drive regulated cars, with regulated emission, with gas that is regulated, at the speeds that are regulated, and only if we have regulated licenses. Is a seat belt really a big deal? Wearing one will probably save your life. Is that so bad?
Please, I wasn't making a value judgement, but one of consistency. We all know that laws are inconsistent and applied inconsistently, but I was surprised that I'd never considered that particular inconsistency in the seat belt debate. Now I'm curious, do you have to wear a seat belt on an ATV? If the desire is maximum safety, then why a lap belt and not a 4-point harness? Why not a motorcycle helmet!
| The legality of motorcycles is a separate issue.
Motorcycles aren't that cleanly separated: the relevant definitions of a "motor vehicle" cover cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, farm vehicles, powered scooters, and, in some cases, Segways. Also see DUI laws and bicycles.
| Just because people are insane on motorcycles...
Although accidents are more brutal, it's not necessarily insane to ride a motorcycle considering their fuel economy. People do insane things in cars as well (eat, text, read, apply makeup).
Sort of OT: I processed accident claims for over five years. You don't have to do anything "insane" on a motorcycle to get seriously racked up. What would be a minor fenderbender in a car leading to minor whiplash, where the policyholder was trying to see how many neckrubs he could get covered, on a motorcycle can be them picking gravel out of your road rash and involve broken bones that don't want to mend right and require surgery weeks later. I also saw plenty of second degree burns on the leg from contact with the tailpipe. I never saw a single burn claim for just routine driving of a car.
As for ATVs, they should require more protection. I saw at least one claim involving loss of the foot and lower leg. It made even motorcycle accidents look relatively tame.
I probably reviewed over 60,000 accident files in my time with the company, to give some context for my impressions that motorcycles are just crazy dangerous, no matter how careful you are.
I am only remarking on comparable things, like a low speed, one vehicle car crash versus a low speed, one vehicle motor cycle crash. The outcomes are drastically different. Yes I also saw files on car crashes that left people mangled for life. Those folks usually were doing insane things, like drinking or doing drugs and driving 100mph at night. You can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time on a motorcycle and get your shit very permanently, very fucked up because of some other careless driver who did not see you. The same outcome in a car takes a lot more going wrong.
Edit: In reviewing that many files, most serious accidents had an element of "accident waiting to happen". Cases of "Damn, it sucks to be you. Shit happens." were very extremely in the minority. It radically changed my view of risk assessment.
That's not fair; she could easily look at the number of policyholders versus claims broken down by vehicle type. I'm sure the numbers looks as bad as she describes.
By "discretion" to you mean officers revealing private/personal info or images (such as going to the bathroom)? In that case, you allow the officer to turn the system off for preset intervals (say, 5-10 minutes), with the understanding that if an arrest or alteration were to coincidentally happen during that shutdown period, the officer's account would be treated with extreme skepticism - and multiple occurrences of incidents happening during shutdown periods would be grounds for termination.
If by "discretion" you're talking about officers using their judgment in the field to let offenders go without citation, I don't see why video changes anything. Law enforement would still have the discretion to charge or not charge, and if anything, the video would be helpful to supporting that officer's discretion and for training purposes as examples of the right/wrong way to do things.
Turning of a chest-mounted camera while going to the bathroom? If you have to loop your penis up in front of your chest and back down to use the urinal, just wrap it back around waist instead, to avoid having it appear an camera. The most private thing they're going to catch is the sound of you passing gas while using the restroom.
Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. (Actually stopping crimes in progress is secondary at best).
Falsifying evidence is the opposite of this job. Not just not doing the job, but doing its inverse. Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.
Forget banned, they should be jailed, if not worse. They are undermining the entire legitimacy of the justice system, a cornerstone of our society. There are few worse crimes than undermining our ability to punish crime itself.
Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.
I suppose it would only be fair that they received the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which they were making the false accusation. Bonus points for allowing the trial to procede untainted and then just transferring the sentence.
Lawyers tell me that judges rarely prosecute lying under oath, they just rule against the liars.
The reason? If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial? He's already accused of that crime, so more lies makes little difference. This is why perjury trials are so rare.
Also, "perjury", strictly defined, means testimony that's both material to the issues and leads to a miscarriage of justice. That's a tough standard.
How does the result of committing perjury ("a miscarriage of justice") factor into whether or not it's been committed? AIUI (IANAL), perjury requires three conditions be met: a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3).
Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please?
Point 1 -- materiality: "Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding."
Point 2 -- resulting in a miscarriage of justice: "Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice."
> a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3).
Necessary but not sufficient. One must still meet the materiality and miscarriage of justice tests.
Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether its commission results in a miscarriage of justice or not. It describes the elements of the crime as: an oath, an intent, a falsehood, and the materiality of that falsehood.
Not to disparage that august institution, but I think something more authoritative than a Wikipedia citation is probably warranted to establish whether the result of an action is necessary for that action to be criminal, instead of the usual Model Penal Code standard of mens rea coupled with actus reus.
> Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether the commission of perjury results in a miscarriage of justice or not.
So it seems. In researching this, I see that the "miscarriage of justice" issue has two effects -- it often determines whether a case of perjury is pursued at all, and it affects the nature of the punishment (the sentencing phase). But it's not part of the formal definition that might lead to a determination of guilt. So I was wrong to state it the way I did earlier.
The "miscarriage of justice" issue is important, but it's not part of the definition of perjury -- it only affects whether a case is pursued by a prosecutor, and it may then influence the punishment.
Thanks for the response with a bit of context from that perspective.
However, I would think that "material to the issue" and "miscarriage of justice" would both apply to the potential, or particularly actual, conviction of another person based on false testimony.
Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial and judgment based upon said testimony.
The courts might also consider context, where the fact of a member of law enforcement committing perjury might be considered particularly onerous, and worrisome in that it may reflect a repeated pattern across multiple cases and potentially across multiple law enforcement officers if it reflects de facto policy and/or improper training and supervision.
Finally, effective law enforcement in this country is meant to depend upon and engender public trust -- and participation, amongst other things in the direct form of the jury. Failure to investigate and prosecute frankly criminal behavior on the part of law enforcement undermines this foundation.
Witness areas such as those described in the OP, where law enforcement ends up in certain respects being "another gang".
P.S. I might add that, with respect to the incentives that the OP article describes, it appears that the perjuring law officer may stand, directly or through their organization, to gain materially as a result of their false testimony.
Not only are they bearing false witness, they are doing so for material benefit.
Which speaks to the nature of the incentives and metrics described.
> Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial and judgment based upon said testimony.
No, as far as I know and in most jurisdictions -- for it to be perjury, among the other conditions already listed, there must be a resulting miscarriage of justice. BTW IANAL.
EDIT: the "miscarriage of justice" issue often affects a prosecutor's decision to pursue a case, and it affects the sentencing phase, but it's not actually part of the formal definition. I was wrong.
> The courts might also consider context, where the fact of a member of law enforcement committing perjury might be considered particularly onerous ...
Yes, but that only applies to sentencing, not the issue of guilt. Whether the facts support a conviction of perjury is separate from the issue of an appropriate punishment after a conviction.
I guess I shouldn't conflate the courts with the prosecutor's office (and law enforcement itself, for that matter).
And IANAL -- NEC (Not Even Close) -- myself. BTW, I hope that acronyms suffice in such disclaimers. ;-)
The P.S. that I added to my grandparent, I wrote before you followed up. So, it was not in response to your response.
Beginning to feel too much like a lawyer, just writing these convolutions...
I appreciate your level-headed, and researched, responses. Admittedly, I'm going more than a bit on emotion, here.
Without being overly versed in the details of the law, I watch the contemporary results and trends in this country with a growing horror. Of course, that may reflect my own particular circumstances [1] as much or more than an objective (however defined) measure of actual circumstances.
--
[1] Including e.g. aging, competing with production environments that don't have to meet my own's level of expenses including due to regulatory and safety expenses, respect for IP, etc.
Regarding your "If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial?" - What's to stop an accused murderer from lying more during the murder trial? Does this prevent us from handling murder trials?
In a perjury trial, why do you need to ask anything at all? You have the documented testimony where the accused said X under oath, and you have the facts/evidence proving not X.
You need to ask, because that's what a trial is for. To give folks a chance to defend themselves; to allow mercy into the process.
Its pretty common for Engineers to deconstruct social processes into algorithms, but the humanity often gets lost.
Let me try: lying under oath happens during someone else's trial, when you're bound by law to tell the truth. During your perjury trial you're protected by the 5th amendment, so the process must by necessity involve information-gathering from external sources. Whether you lie or not then becomes almost immaterial.
> What's to stop an accused murderer from lying more during the murder trial?
In that case, it would increase the roster of crimes the defendant is accused of. Not so for someone already accused of perjury.
> In a perjury trial, why do you need to ask anything at all?
In a perjury trial, the defendant's attorney might try to argue that the defendant didn't know what he said was false. Perjury requires knowing falsehoods, not inadvertent misstatements of fact. Or the attorney might try to argue that the falsehoods weren't material to the issues being tested in court. There are other defenses -- mental incompetence and others.
The cops work for and with the prosecutors. They're the ones that do investigations, collect evidence, and pick up suspects. That's why prosecutors won't cross them.
>Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.
I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times (i.e. realize that sometimes drugged out people or domestic abuser need to be knocked out, for example. I mean that occasionally, there is an ugliness people might not want to admit exists but is necessary.)
I think one has to consider the human factor in this and be aware of that when designing policing solutions.
> but on the other hand they are just people -- as fallible as anyone.
Responsibilities, privileges, and risks should be clearly presented to anyone applying for the position.
Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers. "Oh they are just human, so they let the planes collide once in a while. No biggie. Maybe 10 days paid vacation" -- No way, right? There would be talks of manslaughter charges, putting better processes in place. Shorter shifts.
I can see "they are just people" excuse being used for those who are involuntarily stuck in the situation. Police works is still voluntary employment.
Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse. It is not just those few cops that are corrupt that are bad, everyone who sees, but doesn't say anything, is also part of the "spoiled bunch". I would guess most cops by now have seen their colleagues do questionable things and didn't say anything. So by this definition there are very few "good cops"
>Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers.
One can't honestly compare the rigor and checks for a order of magnitudes larger workforce. It's like saying the same rigor applied to space vehicles should be taken to build cars or appliances. I mean, it's possible, but not economically viable. Also, it's not the same kind of adrenalin inducing scenario (i.e you're not thinking, "is this the plane that's coming for me"? i.e. is this the guy who's going to take me down?)
>Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse.
Ok, but I never made any point about this.
I'm only saying that a system which relies on humans but does not account for their fallibility will have a weakness which needs to be acknowledged and addresed in order to be effective.
>So by this definition there are very few "good cops"
By that definition, there would be very few good people. People tend to give people they know or work with "the benefit of doubt" or even "turn a blind eye".
They might be good people but still be horrible cops. But being horrible cops means they must not be cops.
Would you have such an accepting stance on teachers refusing to turn in a rapist teacher? Betraying a trust must mean you lose your position immediately, but it must also cost enough to make it honestly unattractive.
By not having strong and effective punishments for this we create perverse incentives to betray others.
Simple solution - like with legal practice, if you're thrown out (disbarred) you can't mention the job without also mentioning the having been thrown out. Then let people choose to pretend they hadn't been police at all or admit what happened, as they prefer.
I've seen this happen a number of times on reddit. Someone claims police brutality, the thread escalates to the main page, then eventually dies down with the top few posts taking a cool-headed stance. In fact, there have been times when I have found my own opinion on the less moderate side of the hivemind's consensus, and I consider myself fairly trigger-shy when it comes to criticizing the police for doing their job (possibly because I've never been on the wrong side of an arrest).
I've heard the claim repeated many times that "democratic oversight" could never work because people, in general, are too soft-hearted to understand the realities of policework. It just doesn't ring true to me: if anything, people tend to ignore violence if it has nothing to do with them.
I suppose this might be true in general (in a world where footage is not expected) --but if footage were to become commonplace, even expected (and this evidence), then there would have to a revisit to what's allowed and what isn't and what transgresses into police brutality (taking context into account, etc.) and what does not and how that would affect lawsuits, etc.
> Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed.
I have to disagree. Their job is to maintain social control using violence (and the threat of it). If you take food from a store and give it to a hungry person, you'll face a man with a stick.
What happens when you watch a DVD movie? You get threatened that a man with a stick will come after you if you copy it. Similar goes if you simply have the wrong color, which once meant you were a slave... or engage in civil disobedience.
We can fantasize about how something like "police" would act in a future society, who just focus on real problems like violent drunks and child abusers. But that's not our world. We're like people under feudalism talking about how the king is a benevolent administrator of people's needs.
Let me preface this statement by saying that I am a libertarian opposed to the excess powers granted to some police and the corrupt situations in which they may be found.
However, in a city like NYC I (anecdotally) find that in the overwhelming cases I've encountered the police have focused on real problems like violent drunks and child Abusers. For case in point, I was with a group moving frm a party to a bar and we (lapsing judgement) carried a few beers with us for the walk over. Definitely not violent drunks.
An undercover cop car was driving by and had (presumably) no choice but to detain us. In the end, he laughed at us and told us to pound our beers since we already got in trouble for them anyway (seriously, they laughingly told us to finish our beers off to the side while they wrote the ticket). It ended up behind a minor citation ($30) and a wink and get on with your night. Not a big deal.
I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole all or even most officers as someone who will show Up "with a stick". While I lament unreasonable open container laws, these guys handled things very profrofessionally and respectfully.
Maybe I got a skewed sample, but I, being pretty libertarian have been pretty impressed with the pragmatism and respect I've seen with the NYPD.
Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.
Not enough, IMO. The should face the same sentence the accused would have. But then, will we find enough cops and prosecutors without sins to throw the stones?
On a historic note, Stalin's first, bloodiest purges were also governed by quotas and the heads of various departments of the secret police (NKVD) trying to one up each other, exerting pressure on their subordinates, and in the absence of judicial oversight. Stalin ended up replacing over-enthusiastic NKVD chiefs twice, and the last one, the one we remember the most and whose name, Beria, we come to associate with the oppressive force, was actually less brutal then the previous two (Yagoda and Ezhov).
It's veering a bit off-topic, but there's a fascinating historical debate on the Purges going on since the opening of many Soviet archives post-1990. Some historians (though not all) are moving away from the traditional view of Stalin as mastermind in complete control of the situation, and are putting more emphasis on machinations within the NKVD, which seems to have been the source of a lot more independent activity than we had thought, with Stalin often not appearing to be in the loop. In the strong form of the interpretation that's led some to argue that the purges were primarily a function of the bureaucratic machine, with Stalin mostly riding the wave and trying to stay on top of the chaos. In fact they argue that the traditional view, of Stalin as Machiavellian mastermind, was largely an invention of Stalin himself, who was trying to appear in complete control of the situation. Other interpretations revise the traditional view somewhat less, but most do seem to be putting more emphasis on what was going on in the NKVD.
Makes sense. Bureaucracies are soulless moral-free machines good at crushing individuals in some mindless goal of self-perpetuation. In fact, makes perfect sense!
No, he was just following Machiavelli's advice for how a prince (ie dictator) should enforce law and order when extreme measures are called for. Namely assign the job to a henchman, and then when the deed is done, convince the people that the henchman was acting on his own, and execute the henchman:
There's good evidence he was poisoned, and after his death he was pretty quickly denounced, but he ruled for long enough that we can still count it as a win I suppose.
Stalin was and will always be one of the most evil mass murderers in history. The fact he was responsible for the death of tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe is hard to fathom - but it's true.
It baffles the mind how he could have got so far. It must be in part because people didn't speak up early on, either out of fear or because they were uninformed.
Unspeakably sad how bad it got. They probably thought it wasn't possible. Perhaps too trusting?
People today can never become complacent. Never be too distracted, preoccupied or inconvenienced to speak up and stand up against oppression. Even when the oppression is from our own elected governments.
When I worked on a student newspaper in Montreal, a photographer of ours was once detained by Metro (subway) cops and beaten in a back room.
I did the followup and a cop read the police report to me over the phone. It detailed how the photographer had aggressively interfered with the police in the performance of their duties, quoting the French profanities he had uttered.
Problem: the photographer was a unilingual English-speaker from Ontario.
When they told me that, I got a little too excited about getting them to give me these exact quotes from the report. The police officer suddenly said he'd call me back. Fifteen minutes later, he called me back, opening with "aaah, actually we don't know exactly what he said."
This isn't even the most interesting case of cops lying that I know of, but you always remember your first.
The only section of that page that might be relevant to what you just said was " police and military personnel, groups with more reason to deny past illegal drug use, were twice as likely to recant than the general population." You appear to be arguing that police are intrinsically more likely to lie, but this study doesn't support that, it actually supports the quote you are trying to refute.
"You appear to be arguing that police are intrinsically more likely to lie, but this study doesn't support that, it actually supports the quote you are trying to refute."
I actually wasn't arguing that cops are more intrinsically likely to lie, only that they are more likely to lie. Although I do also believe that they are probably more intrinsically likely to lie. Why? I think you're right that of the non-police population, many would lie if they became cops due to the extrinsic incentives to lie. At the same time though, people who aren't comfortable lying about their current/past drug use are effectively banned from becoming cops. So while the study might not prove that cops are more intrinsically likely to lie per se, the fact that there is a significant disparity suggests to me that it's highly likely that part of that disparity is due to differences in who decides to be a cop. And, if it is the case that some significant portion of that disparity is due to selection factors, which seems likely, then my it would be accurate to say that they are intrinsically more likely to lie.
In the UK, policing is meant to be consensual, by the "people" for the people. The first police were intentionally recruited from lower classes to avoid the whole high-status issue. It's not a well-paid job. Police Dramas like "The Wire" in the US glamorise police work, where in the UK, we have "The Bill" which makes it look dull as hell...
Point of clarification: While many US television shows glamorize police work, "The Wire" is definitely not one of them.
"The Wire" shows a lot more of the police/political system trying to sweep things under the rug than anything else. There is even a large portion of one season dedicated to an officer falsifying evidence for his own personal obsession with a completely different case.
They are free to do what they want and rarely get any punishment. The only thing they get is Leave Without Pay for some time and that's only when they screwed up really bad.
One of the things privileged members of society have a hard time understanding is the cynical viewpoint of the underprivileged. What does one think when the "justice" system commits fraud and one grows up realizing that you're too poor to afford facts being facts and the truth being the truth? It's George Orwell's "ultimate insult," writ savage.
> Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day — even when there’s no clear benefit to lying.
Years ago, I mentioned the notion of never lying in front of my girlfriend's mom, and she laughed out loud. I was shocked. Is this what most people are really like? I'm beginning to think that I don't like most people.
Story about people lying is exclusively based on interviewing a few people and trusting that they are telling the truth about people lying.
I'm sure it happens, I'm sure it's terrible, but I'm sure interviewing people isn't a useful means of doing anything about it. The whole premise is that people lie and are incentivized to do so, but somehow this is magically not true of the people telling you about the lies?
You must have missed the part about hundreds of drug cases being thrown out because of such lies. Here it is from the OP
> The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”
You actually think this is a good article? Most of that case was also just testimony, this time people saying people are lying.
The article backs up its case with:
1) Article written by a former police commissioner.
2) Quote about one actual case that apparently had some videotape proving a lie.
3) Bronx district attorney decides that the means to deal with lying is to interview the cops who are supposed to be lying about whether they are lying or not.
4) Back to former police commissioner again.
5) Passing reference to 'numerous scandals'
6) Interviews with 'numerous officers' by Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project
The former police commissioner writing an article, the supreme court justice, the police being interviewed about their lying, the folks investigating the 'numerous scandals', and the Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project -all- have their own agendas, but everything they say is blindly taken as fact in the same article that claims humans lie every day. If you want to mistrust cops because their funding is tied to arrests, you should probably mistrust the urban justice police reform project because their very name is tied to proving the cops are wrong. Why is one side automatically trustworthy? Solely because they support the premise?
I feel like this could be an interesting topic, but approaching it from a he-said/she-said interviewing standpoint is laughable, it should be obvious that interviewing people about lying is downright counterproductive.
Ah yes, you're right. Anytime someone accuses cops of lying, those cops usually go straight to jail, and judges rip them a new one. That is most definitely how the system is stacked up, especially in New York.
And a few years ago, when an officer secretly taped his bosses deliberately fudging statistics, that was just another case of biased recording devices...chronic issue, for sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
I wonder why the author of that piece couldn't devote 30,000 exhaustive words for the article. Another conspiracy of course.
> In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.
At least in Maryland where I live, whether you trust the police less (or more) so than other witnesses is one of the half dozen standard things they ask you in voir dire, and saying yes will exclude you from serving on a jury.
Disclaimer: my experience with US police officers is limited to being asked questions by a couple of cops at the airport and watching The Wire.
Assuming that cops do actually have quotas, and that their bonus are tied to achieving these quotas, this effectively creates a for-profit police force. Which mechanically leads to aberrations like the DEA agent mentioned in the Caswell case[1] who was paid taxpayer money to find private properties for seizing. And who watches the watchmen?
Note this situation is not unique: in France, the former right wing government put a heavy emphasis on crime statistics, and since the new "left wing" interior minister seems to follow the same policies, it's probably still the case.
Did you actually read the comment you replied to? It doesn't base anything at all on said productions; it was just a cute way of saying lack of exposure to US police.
...how expensive would it be to have all policemen use something like mini-cameras with mikes on them and have a full video archive of all police actions? If things like Google-glass catch on, the cost of a one way system without the projector, plus a streaming system via mobile phone app will make this disposable cheap (yeah, then we'll get into the privacy matter - like a video of you being stopped for speeding with a hooker in your car risking to get on youtube for your wife to see... but still)
I've witnessed a police officer lying under oath. I think it was a combination of bad recollection and justifying the lies as minor compared to the overall situation.
In the US perjury is a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.
Does that somehow not apply to the police? If a cop's performance is measured by number of arrests or convictions, and the repercussions of lying under oath is maybe a suspension with pay or worst case being fired, I do not see how this is going to change.
IMHO, law enforcement officials should be held to higher standard.
Why aren't lie detectors used in court on a regular basis? Even if it didn't work 100% of the time, it would be better than having to read posts like this.
If I was a suspect or witness testifying in a trial that could result in myself or someone I know getting the death penalty or going to jail for a long time, I'd be really nervous and maybe fail the lie detector even if my answers were completely truthful.
OTOH a police officer who's used to lying to suspects (it's the main tool police have in countries where torture or police brutality isn't allowed), or a hardened psychopath criminal who doesn't see anything wrong with lying to protect his own interests, may be so cool that he/she can easily pass the lie detector.
Well it is a known QA practice: never base incentive on metrics or people will cheat one way or another with the metrics.
If your dev have a prime based on SLA or tickets solved guess what? You are giving them an incentive to cheat. You will have nice figures to show your investors, ypur stock options' values will raise and coder will be better paid. Everyone is happy, who cares about the truth, the unfairness, the lie. This is just mis placed moral.
Stats that can be tricked are the prozac of our society. It make the metrics describing a situation improve with mutual benefits for (almost) all the stakeholders.
Who cares about the customers or minorities anyway? I mean not on the paper but honestly?
Well, as soon as the first commandment goes down the drain, all other commandments are quick to follow: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Exodus 20:12. It is the general public who is to blame, because they are not willing to enforce this. Police officers caught using force on behalf of the politicians or their servants to transgress on Exodus 20:12 must be served a final extermination order without trial, procedure or ceremony, executable by whoever happens to available and/or willing, because such is the will of the supreme being.
