Slashdot Mirror
Bennett Haselton's Response To That "Don't Talk to Cops" Video
In my first article about the Fifth Amendment, I asked: Why is it a good thing that the Fifth Amendment allows a suspect to refuse to answer "Yes" or "No" as to whether they committed a crime or not? (I was emphatically not saying that a suspect should have to answer questions that are nobody else's business -- if you weren't at the scene of the crime, you should be free to say, "I wasn't at the scene of the crime, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." However, the Fifth Amendment lets you refuse to answer the question of whether you even committed the crime at all, and I didn't see what was so great about that, because it is everybody's legitimate business whether or not you committed the crime.)
In the second article, I asked a different question: If you do accept the rationale for allowing a suspect to refuse to answer the question of whether they committed the crime or not, why don't we extend the same protection to third-party witnesses? In other words, if Bob commits a crime and Alice is a witness, and the police ask Bob and Alice the same question -- "Did Bob do it?" -- and both refuse to answer, then Bob is allowed to do this but Alice can go to jail for remaining silent, even though Bob might be guilty, and Alice is the one who is known to be innocent! That seems crazy.
The full arguments are given in each of the articles linked above (and dissected further in the comments) and I don't want to rehash either of them here, but in response to both articles, multiple people sent me the link to Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" video, which has been viewed about 2 million times on Youtube. (Professor Duane also ceded half his presentation time to police officer George Bruch, giving him the chance to offer a 'rebuttal', which has been uploaded as a separate video -- Bruch's video has been viewed about 1 million times.) I've watched Professor Duane's presentation twice, and one problem I have with the video is that I don't know what Professor Duane's actual position is. Yes, he says that he would "never talk to any police officer under any circumstances, ever", but does that really mean that if he witnessed a violent altercation on the street and the cops wanted to ask him about it, that he wouldn't say a word to them? Or, if he got pulled over for speeding, would he really hand over his license and registration and then sit silently in the driver's seat refusing to respond the cop's questions (which pretty much eliminates your chance at being let off with a warning)? What if his house got broken into, would he really refuse to call the cops and tell them? And, uh, there's a police officer who co-presents in the video with him, didn't Professor Duane have to talk to him to get him in the video? In fact, he speaks directly to the cop on camera! Busted!
"Oh, stop being so literal, Bennett, you know that's not what he meant!" OK, but what did he mean? One problem with staking out a fairly extreme position to begin with, is that if you describe it hyperbolically, there's no way for people to know what your actual position is. I emailed Professor Duane to ask if he could clarify, but didn't get a response. (Since his video has been viewed over 2 million times, possibly my email got lost in the pile of mails he gets every week saying, "Oh shit I got arrested and I opened my big mouth, you got any ideas for what I should do now??")
For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Professor Duane means that if the police approached him with questions about a crime (and excluding "hot pursuit" situations such as when the police are chasing a mugger and ask "Which way did he go?"), he would refuse to talk to them. In that case, I have a couple of points to make in response to the video, but first, if you haven't seen it, you may want to watch it now, along with the 'rebuttal' offered by police officer George Bruch, and see if you come up with the same objections that I did.
Everybody back? OK, here are my thoughts:
1. The video is answering a different question from the one I asked. The video weighs the costs and benefits to the individual, of remaining silent; I was asking whether the defendant's right to remain silent is good for society as a whole. Of course if you're innocent, then it's in both your interest and society's interest for you to go free. If you're guilty, on the other hand, you may want to walk free, but it's usually in your society's interest for you to be convicted. (You could argue an exception for pot laws or whatever, but generally speaking, we do want criminals to get caught.)
Professor Duane, beginning at the 24:50 mark, specifically invokes Martha Stewart, Marion Jones, and Michael Vick, as examples of people who he thinks would have gotten lighter sentences, or gotten off completely, if they had remained silent throughout their legal ordeals. Yes, but all three of those people were guilty (Martha Stewart, very probably; Jones and Vick, beyond any doubt), so while it may have been better for them to remain silent, it would not have been better for the legal system as a whole. (All three of them had supporters who said the laws they were being charged under, were unjust in the first place, but that's a separate problem.)
This is not an explicit error on Professor Duane's part -- since he was arguing that remaining silent is good for the individual, not for society -- but it does mean the video is not precisely a response to the point I was making.
2. The argument about the danger of talking to cops is based on a sampling error. Professor Duane says that criminal defense attorneys "always, always say it was a bad idea for their client to talk to the police". But this sample obviously only includes people who talked to the police and ended up getting arrested, and charged, and needing a criminal defense attorney. The sample wouldn't include anyone that the police talked to and decided not to arrest -- whether they were initially brought in as a suspect but then convinced the police that they were innocent, or whether they were simply third-party witnesses who volunteered information to the police that they thought was useful.
In fact, in the 'rebuttal' video from Officer Bruch, he says at the 6:20 mark:
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
This appears to contradict Professor Duane, who said repeatedly that even if you're innocent, "it CANNOT help" to talk to the police, and that "you CANNOT talk to the police out of arresting you". Unless Bruch was lying, then Duane's statement was wrong, although neither of them seemed to notice. But if you did talk the police out of arresting you, then you wouldn't end up in Professor Duane's sample of people whose ended up needing a defense lawyer.
And even this sample is restricted to people who are brought into the interrogation room, where Officer Bruch said he tried not to bring anybody in at all unless the thought they were probably guilty. If you include all the people that the cops try and talk to, who the police don't think are guilty -- people casually stopped on the street, or called on the phone, or visited in their house, because they might have relevant information -- then your sample becomes much larger, and the proportion who talk to the cops and do not subsequently get in trouble, goes way up.
Also, of course, Professor Duane's sample includes people who talked to the police and were convicted, who were in fact guilty. Their defense attorneys may wish that their clients had kept silent and possibly walked free as a result, but that wouldn't be good for the rest of us.
3. His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating. That's essentially why I do talk to the police if I get pulled over for speeding -- I've gotten off with a warning a few times, whereas I'm pretty sure that if I'd just sat silently and stared straight ahead, I would have gotten the ticket.
4. Professor Duane's argument is about talking to the cops; I'm asking about the merits of the Fifth Amendment as it applies in a courtroom as well. At the 15:22 mark, for example, Professor Duane gives the fictional example of a suspect who says to the police:
"I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't kill Jones and I don't know who did. I wasn't anywhere near that place. I don't have a gun, and I have never owned a gun in my life. I don't even know how to use a gun. Yeah, sure I never liked the guy, but who did? I wouldn't kill him. I've never hurt anybody in my life, and I would never do such a thing."
Professor Duane continues: "Let's suppose every word of that is true, 100% of it is true. What will the jury hear at trial? 'Officer Bruch, was there anything about your interrogation, your interview with the suspect that made you concerned that he might be the right one?' 'Yes sir there was. He confessed to me that He never liked the guy.'"
Even if that scenario is a valid reason not to talk to the police, it wouldn't be possible in a courtroom, where all of your answers are recorded, and it will be obvious if someone is trying to distort the meaning of something that you said earlier.
This is also not an error on Professor Duane's part, since his talk was called "Don't Talk To Cops", not "Don't Ever Answer Questions In Court". (While he's right that most criminal defense attorneys wish that their clients had not talked to the police, some criminal defense attorneys do encourage their clients to take the stand at trial.) So it's not relevant to the question of whether society benefits from giving defendants a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in a courtroom.
5. Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid? Go back up to Professor Duane's hypothetical in which a suspect protests his innocence, and Duane imagines that Officer Bruch -- Professor Duane's real-life co-presenter in this talk! -- takes five words out of context and testifies in court, "He confessed to me, 'I never liked the guy'."
When the real Officer Bruch gave his 'rebuttal', he started out by started out by saying, "Everything he just said was true. And it was right, and it was correct." If I had been in the room at the time, I would have asked him, "Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'" Well, we already know that George Bruch didn't really agree with everything that Professor Duane said, since Bruch contradicted him on some points, such as Duane's claim that "talking to the police cannot possibly help you even if you're innocent". But I would have liked for Officer Bruch to say if he thinks the police are anywhere as stupid and corrupt as Professor Duane was implying that they are.
More to the point -- and I went into this in my first article about the Fifth Amendment -- if the police and the courts are even remotely that corrupt and incompetent, then that's a wide-ranging problem that applies to all types of evidence gathered in the case, not just statements from suspect. And if that's the case, then the Fifth Amendment is just a band-aid that only solves the stupid-cops-and-courts problem as it applies to suspect statements specifically. It doesn't solve the problem as it applies to circumstantial evidence, unreliable eyewitness testimony, false memories, evaluating the credibility of other witnesses, and other factors.
In other words, if you're arrested, suppose the cops really are so dumb and/or evil that they would quote your "I never liked the guy" out of context to try and get you convicted. So, taking Professor Duane's advice, you say nothing. Do you still trust those same police officers to handle the other aspects of your case fairly? To make sure any exculpatory evidence is brought to light? To interrogate other witnesses without leading them towards a pre-set conclusion?
As I said in my first article, that doesn't mean that this is not a valid argument for the Fifth Amendment. But it means that if this is the primary argument in favor of the Fifth Amendment, then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
The Weekly Standard published a more devastating rebuttal to Professor Duane's video, in which the author describes the devastating effects that the "Don't Snitch" movement has had on high-crime neighborhoods, as a result of large numbers of people following Professor Duane's philosophy to the letter. The article quoted one rap celebrity saying that he wouldn't even tell the police about a known murderer living next door to him. Professor Duane may not endorse that view directly, but he could hardly disagree that it follows logically from his admonition to "never talk to the police under any circumstances, ever". This is essentially the same logic error that I pointed out in point #2 -- if you focus only on people who talked to the police and ended up getting arrested, you're ignoring the benefits of people talking to the police who not only don't get arrested, but may help stop a crime or catch a criminal. It might still be a bad idea on balance to talk the police, but you couldn't make that argument by limiting your sample to the people who get arrested.
More generally, there may be an argument why either the individual or society benefits from the legal right to remain silent -- but it would have to be based on a sample drawn from all innocent people who talk to the cops, and the proportion who subsequently benefit as a result, and the proportion who are subsequently penalized, and weighing the magnitude of the benefits versus the drawbacks, and the likelihood of each. The "Don't Talk To Cops" video doesn't do that.
Given recent events, you'd be lucky if you even had a chance to open your mouth.
"Did Bob do it?" -- and both refuse to answer, then Bob is allowed to do this but Alice can go to jail for remaining silent, even though Bob might be guilty, and Alice is the one who is known to be innocent! That seems crazy. "
You are mixing police and justice.
Both Bob and Alice should not be talking to the police.
Then the chances that one of them will be accused is much slimmer.
Not talking to the police is allowed, not service as a witness before a judge not.
" It might still be a bad idea on balance to talk the police, but you couldn't make that argument by limiting your sample to the people who get arrested. "
If you don't talk to the police, chances are great that you will never be arrested and put before a judge, rightfully so or not.
Ask Martha, she went to jail for lying to the police, that's always the risk, even if you escape being punished for the real alleged crime.
That was kind of his point, which you seem to have missed entirely.
Even the first point was silly, as it presumes that authority figures are perfect angels. Looks like someone doesn't understand the fifth amendment...
How much did Bennett Haselton have to pay Dice Media to be allowed to post his comments above the big green line, instead of down here with us proles?
Why did Martha Steward go to jail?
If someone with that kind of money and influence can do time just for talking to cops - what do you think that means for the rest of us?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Why does Slashdot feel compelled to let itself be Bennett Haselton's personal political soapbox?
and why should I care about his take on this?
"Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law."
This alone invalidates EVERYTHING said in this article.
Police look at every single civilian as an enemy first. Remember that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Bennett Haselton is not a lawyer, a judge, or a cop. He has a degree in mathematics and is a computer professional. Why on earth should I be interested in his opinion on this topic?
"I was asking whether the defendant's right to remain silent is good for society as a whole"
The right is to the individual, not society. Besides that a lot of things could be crafted as "being good for society as a whole". Like telling people what to eat, drink and do.
"If you do accept the rationale for allowing a suspect to refuse to answer the question of whether they committed the crime or not, why don't we extend the same protection to third-party witnesses?"
There are some protections for 3rd party witnesses like spouses, it also varies depending on the circumstances like blackmail, fear or trauma. it's not black and white.
did you forget to take your meds?
Why do you think that your opinion trumps that of Regents University law professor James Duane?
Please either cite your relevant legal qualifications, or prefix your opinions with IANAL.
Oh yeah .. TL;ORTFS (Too long; only read TFS)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You must not have watched the entire video. The advice is "Don't talk to the cops without an attorney". There is always time later to confess, but the fundamental reality of our criminal justice system is that it is a bargaining table. A suspect who gives up everything they have to bargain with at the very beginning is ultimately unable to win a fair sentence. Again, the U.S. Criminal Justice system is a bargaining table. Lawyers know this. Judges know this. Pretty much all legal professionals know this. Therefor, don't talk to the cops *without a lawyer*.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
So who the fuck is Bennett Haselton? More importantly, why do we keep getting front page items about this one guy not understanding the basics of the Constitution? Sure it's a Monday, but why does anyone care about this turd arguing against something he clearly doesn't understand?
historic reason for the 5th amendment. Until you do I suggest you stop proving yourself a fool.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Everyone's got a right to their own opinion, Bennett's in this case seems to be no more relevant that a couple college kids in a dorm bullsh*t session. Further, Bennett talks quite a bit about society's interest, which isn't a concern in the original video. It is in the interest of a Lawyer's individual client to not talk to the police- public interest be damned at that point.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The problem with answering any questions is that the deck is stacked against you already, and answering without a lawyer that restores some semblance of balance to the ordeal is legal suicide.
To the society question, well this is what happens when the system is rigged against individuals. "Innocent Bystanders" are rarely good witnesses to the accuracy of events anyway, so the benefit to an investigation is limited.
However, the Fifth Amendment lets you refuse to answer the question of whether you even committed the crime at all, and I didn't see what was so great about that, because it is everybody's legitimate business whether or not you committed the crime.)
But *which* crime? There are so many laws that even the federal government can't tell you how many they are. How can anyone possibly know that they haven't committed a crime and that their statments might come back to bite them later?
Just like the huge tax code, the criminal code needs a major overhaul and simplification.
As Duane says:
[James Duane] Now. Here's part of the problem. The heart of the problem, as Justice Briar, on the U.S. Supreme Court explained in 1998 is, quote: "The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code, and virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know in advance just when a particular set of statements might later appear to a prosecutor to be relevant to some investigation."
One expert on criminal law recently noted "estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary, although it has been reported that the Congressional Research Service can no longer even count the current number of federal crimes." That's right, even the federal government has lost count. "These laws are scattered over all fifty pages of the U.S. Code, encompassing roughly twenty thousand pages. Worse yet, these statutes often incorporate by reference to the provisions of administrative regulations. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even less well settled, although the ABA thinks there may be nearly ten thousand."
The basic problem with this article - and the authors previous articles - is that they assume that law enforcement, judges, and government are morally just entities who will always attempt to enforce laws based on their spirit and not their own personal ambitions.
The reason the fifth amendment exists is not to protect criminals from prosecution - as you ignorantly assume in your first article - but to protect innocent people from prosecution from crimes they didn't commit, a protection that lingers from the days of King George. An individual would be forced to admit their guilt one way or another. If they said they were innocent, and lawyers later proved them incorrect, they would be charged with two crimes. Claim guilt and you get no trial.
This system allowed two charges to be claimed against the perpetrator, who was potentially innocent of the crime but because of policing techniques and lawyers arguments could be found guilty ... and I've yet to see anyone step up and proclaim that policing techniques, no matter how modern, are perfect.
The ability to choose not to speak up for yourself means police are forced to perform their duties as efficiently and honestly (although that's not always the case) as possible. It's also a good opportunity for your lawyer to talk strategy with you and see what the potential outcomes are of an investigation and trial.
Really, all this proves is that samzenpus is a naive little child living in a much larger world where he believes the big government is a protective father, and not an entity of politicians, judges, and LEOs. It's a bad trait of smart people who should know better than this.
Can we please stop giving air to this obnoxious blowhard who's openly and actively campaigning for a full-on totalitarian police state?
I mean, really. It's one thing to offer up a controversial opinion every now and again to foster click-throughs, but the level of obscene absurdity this Haselton putz has taken it to is out of hand.
If /. is really dedicated to giving voice to somebody who thinks KGB- and Stasi-style policing are a good idea especially at a time when the NSA is running amok and our police have already been militarized, that'll be the straw that finally pushes me away.
Yes, Nazis and Nazi-wannabes like Haselton have the right to freedom of expression, even when they're advocating for those rights to be denied everybody else. But I'll not help magnify their voices. And if /. will, I'll exercise my freedom of association and stop associating with /.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
IMHO, the most important reason is the one Professor Duane gave regarding what weight the statements have in court. Anything you say can and will be used against you, but nothing you say can be used for you. Anything you say in your defense would be ruled as hearsay and as such inadmissable.
So, on a personal level, at the very best nothing happens to you and at the very worst you admit to a crime (and maybe not even the one you're being questioned about!) and get hauled off to jail. On a societal level, at the very best you MIGHT give some information that is useful but at the very worst (and probably more likely) an innocent individual faces charges for a crime he didn't commit.
That's why I would never agree to police questioning without an attorney.
Perhaps I'm being silly, but I'd have thought people who wanted to engage in an ongoing discussion of the Fifth Amendment with Bennet Haselton could be reading, and responding to, Bennet Haselton's blog. Why is it on /.?
Anyway, I found this bit amusing:
But it means that if this is the primary argument in favor of the Fifth Amendment, then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
Because it would really be odd if a whole bunch of people, from the Founders who wrote the amendment to OWS, were saying "the whole system is broken"? Even though they say/said that in far more direct ways all the time?
Would it not be more beneficial for your attorney to arrange some plea deal? As somebody who is not an expert on criminal law, I would keep my mouth shut until I talked to my attorney. I'd let the expert on criminal justice decide if it was worth confessing instead of hoping for the best.
Huh? Libertarian? I think not! Libertarians place more value on individual liberty and freedom and would never be for suspending the 5th amendment just because it might under certain circumstances seem to be good or better for society.
From the seasoned defense attorney I know socially, to my son the new lawyer, his fiancée the newer lawyer, family friend the even newer lawyer, to all of the lawyers I have ever hired, they all say "Don't talk to the cops!" They even have a checklist for when the cops talk to you:
1. "I don't want to talk to you."
2. "Am I free to go?"
3. "I want a lawyer."
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
Yes, cops are that stupid and corrupt. The reason that you don't talk to cops is BECAUSE they are stupid and corrupt and even if they aren't one, they can still be the other. Police exams don't pass people that are too smart (http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836) to begin with so you're most likely (99% of the time) dealing with someone of average IQ or LESS than average IQ, someone who didn't score perfectly on an exam about the rights of the people they serve.
Due to issues with my ex I've been "talking" to cops a lot. Yes, they will take everything you say and distort it through their own lens. If you are a male trying to get justice from a female; the female starts crying or cries abuse and you're pretty much screwed, admitting either before or after that you 'yelled' at someone or stood your ground or bat off a physical attack pretty much screws you over. The fact that she wrestled a child from your arms doesn't even go in the report because they weren't there to see it (unless you have bruises or cuts). I have learned to say the minimal amount of data and facts I need to get an effective police report, write things down in your own words, then go straight to court with it, the police won't help you.
The reason you don't talk to cops is because there is a chance that you will get screwed over and not a chance that anything you say will be vindicating you. The cops don't HAVE to say anything to help you in court and CANNOT say anything that will help you. Just as your defense has the right to direct witnesses, so does the offense - ever heard "Objection, narrative", "Objection, guiding the witness" - that's what the prosecution will yell if you ask the cop on the stand to tell you what you said, they might just yell objection just to interrupt the story and disconnect the witness and the jury from the story. The prosecution's own re-election is based on CONVICTION rates, not "innocence" rates, they will likewise coach the witness pre-trial not to say certain things.
Yes, if you're innocent you'll be let go most of the time REGARDLESS of whether you talk. They can't keep you if you're not talking, not talking does not imply that you're not innocent, it only implies that your IQ is higher than that of the cops. The best thing you can do is tough it out until you get to a judge and even then all you CAN do is present and attack evidence.
If you're guilty and you know it you should wait for a plea bargain, 90% of the cases don't even go to trial these days. If they don't have enough evidence, the case will be dropped and you're off free, if there is enough evidence, your case will be up for a plea bargain before going to trial. This is true even for speeding tickets, the AG will typically offer you a 'disobey traffic device', which is typically a low fine. Going to the judge and letting the cops tell you how cooperative you were is a crapshoot, if the judge is in a bad mood or it's a jury of your peers, it won't matter all that much.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The author of this hasnt thought out the position very well. He forgets 2 crucial facts. 1. The advice is to never talk to the cops WITHOUT A LAWYER. It's not the talking to the cops part that has Prof Duane suggests, it's talking to the cops without legal representation, esp'y bc the police are always looking for probable cause for everything all the time, and secondly b/c the police always have defacto legal representation 2. Cops are assholes. Give them an inch and they shove the whole baton in your ass. But prosecutors are a whole different breed of asshole. The cop is at the end of the day nothing more than an on-the-scene stenographer. It's the prosecutor that uses the statements against you. It;s the AG that builds a case when there isnt one there. It;s the government welfare-queen lawyer that uses their track record to (you going to jail) to pad their resume (get elected to the next office to dick you over). Btw, if you are poor it;s his under-achieving college roommate that gets to defend you for free. hedge your bets in your favor....never talk to the cops. Its a rule so important it gets it's own Commandment (9) AND it's own Amendment (5).
Don't talk to the police if you believe yourself to be the target of an investigation because it is your right and you're a rank amateur in the law, police and DA's are not. If it progresses past a certain point of trying to get you to catch yourself in a lie, hire a lawyer/PD.
I hate sigs.
Denying the state the incentive of extracting a confession "by any means necessary" is one of the best gifts your founding fathers left for you. Removing that safeguard from your justice system will certainly be detrimental. You may think it will never be used against the innocent but one should never forget the famous quotation by H. L. Mencken:
Back when I worked IT for a state office I had to report all missing property (usually computer equipment/parts) to the cops. Why? I wondered about it until the first couple times I did it, then I knew why: The cops ALWAYS assume whoever reports the crime was the one who committed the crime.
Every time I reported something missing I would get pulled into an empty room and literally given the third degree, light in the face and everything. I would be quizzed about my debts, my expenses, my family problems, my drinking/gambling habits, etc. I wold be left in the room alone for 30-40 minutes at a time while I was watched from outside. Sometimes several cops (possibly "detectives") would question me rapid-fire at the same time. It was like they learned to be cops from a TV show.
So why was I picked to report? Because I was the whitest, most innocent-looking person in the IT department. My boss was black, most of my co-workers were also black, asian or hispanic, some were of middle-eastern or persian descent. I'm sure the cops (all middle-aged white guys) went far easier on me than they would have on my co-workers. But they still tried like hell to pin every crime I reported on me.
So even as a super-clean, upstanding-citizen-type white guy I learned: DO NOT TALK TO COPS.
Wishing for the days of Jon Katz submissions.
Police officers are themselves civilians. Even if the militarization of the police has gotten way out of hand, they are still civilians. It is telling that they try to put themselves above citizens by pretending that they are not also civilians. If we let them pretend long enough, the distinction might become real.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/militarization-police
It isn't, but please delete your account anyway.
I consider myself to have strong libertarian leanings, and I don't think this article belongs here either.
Wow that's a mindless read.
"The video is answering a different question from the one I asked."
It's not an answer to you about anything.
"2. The argument about the danger of talking to cops is based on a sampling error. "
No, he explains all the scenarios and how it fails to help and can be used to convict you, even if your innocent.
"3. His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway."
No, he says, save it for court and explains in great detail why that's the correct place. Leniency is not for the cops its for the courts.
"4. Professor Duane's argument is about talking to the cops; I'm asking about the merits of the Fifth Amendment as it applies in a courtroom as well."
Make it into a coherent argument then.
"5. Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid? "
You select quotes out of context and contrast those selected quotes. Go away you tiresome troll.
The risk for an innocent person talking to police if very high, an innocent person only gains not having to retain a lawyer IF the police find their statement creditable. The cost to society does not factor into this decision as the 5th amendment is about personal freedoms and personal protection. What the 5th amendment protects against is silence being used against you in a trial, "he refused to answer questions so that must mean he is guilty mentality". Situations where the innocent person may not recall events perfectly and is now forced to testify would become damming evidence of their guilt. That is what the 5th amendment protects against, it protects innocent people from an imperfect system. The downside is that guilty people can exploit that, but I value the rights of the innocent over the Greater Good of society.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I think you missed the whole point. If they're interrogating you they 'know' you're guilty and will do whatever it takes to convict you.
In other words, if you're arrested, suppose the cops really are so dumb and/or evil that they would quote your "I never liked the guy" out of context to try and get you convicted.
They're not dumb or (in their minds) evil. They 100% convinced that you're guilty of the crime and want you convicted. The DA has the same motivation, if he thought they were innocent you wouldn't be prosecuted.
Do you still trust those same police officers to handle the other aspects of your case fairly?
Nope.
To make sure any exculpatory evidence is brought to light?
Nope.
To interrogate other witnesses without leading them towards a pre-set conclusion?
And... No.
I have been a juror on criminal trials and I am always surprised at how hard it is to tell the difference between the cops and the criminals.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
You are an adult right?
You really believe this crap?
You think no innocent person was ever charged and had to get a lawyer?
I am about the whitest guy ever, but this level of naivety is unbelievable in an adult.
Never talk to the cops, yes even if you are not the guilty party. They will pin something on you, they want to get arrests not the right people. It is a numbers game, they need arrests not convictions. The DA needs convictions and if the cops arrested you he will try to get one.
In response to your question about the "Don't Talk to Cops" video: OK, but what did he mean?
He means, guilty or not, if you are under suspicion of a crime, the cops are NOT looking for evidence to exonerate you. They are looking for anything and everything that can be used to prove your guilt. Including twisting your words in such a way to make you sound as if you were lying or trying to hide something.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
1) You ignore the costs to society of coerced confessions.
2) Some fraction of those who speak to cops suffer. The amount they suffer is quite high, so even if that is a small fraction, speaking to cops is still a high risk activity. There is little to be gained from speaking with cops, so the cost benefit analysis does not work out in favor of speaking with cops.
You have a point here, that the numbers we have don't let us do the actual math. But by estimation, I think it's a firm no.
3) Leniancy is a lie cops tell you to get you to confess.
4) That situation is indeed possible in a coutroom.
5) Yes. And so are the judges, attorneys, and members of the jury.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And I think I could summarize it by finishing the sentence he was going for:
"Don't talk to the police... without a lawyer."
First, if you're brought in for interrogation they have already "arrested" you. I.e., put you in handcuffs in the back of the car, no you aren't free to go, that sort of thing. The police officer says he's let a couple of people go who he knew were innocent after their interrogation. You don't describe the circumstances so we'll never know if he found out they were innocent after talking with them and their lawyer, or if they just talked. Even if the person just talked to the cop without a lawyer present and they decided to let him go, that's taking a big chance considering you don't know if you'll get the cop with the heart of gold going into it.
The cop is trained to talk like a good guy because they want to coerce a confession out of criminals. Even with that in mind, there are times when things don't add up in the cop mind and they decide the person is guilty. I've been in a couple of real far-fetched situations and tried to explain to the cop what was happening (things like, my mom buying a car one day so I'm driving a car with no tags. She hasn't yet signed the title. I'm in a state where she bought the car, she lives in a different state and I live in a third state. She bought it used from someone out of a parking lot so I'm trying to explain all this while praying the guy didn't just steal the car and sell it to my mom..)
So yeah, luckily they didn't take me down to the station. They didn't handcuff me. If they had handcuffed me I would've stopped talking then and asked for a lawyer because having watched the video I know, from what the cop even said, you aren't talking your way out of handcuffs. They are taking you to jail.
As far as evidence entered into the courtroom, I think you'll find that each side is allowed to present evidence however they see fit and the cops/DA will spin it towards you being guilty. That's IF your case goes to trial because the DA is going to lean hard on you to take a plea bargain (saves money for them).
Here's the situation (happened to my friend):
My friend and a buddy are hanging out after going to the shooting range together. Later that night drunken argument of some kind happens, guy pulls friends gun on him (unloaded apparently) and guy leaves the apartment with my friends gun. He throws that gun in the bushes. My friend locks up the buddies gun and figures the dude will sober up and come by the next day to get his gun.
Buddy calls the cops. They show up at 3:00am, arrest friend, confiscate gun. They don't believe the story (I'm not even sure I believe the story but whatever.. it's a story)
The buddy told the cop that my friend pointed the buddies gun at him, so he grabbed the other gun and fled. At the grand jury, the buddy decides the story isn't suspicious enough so he alters his testimony to say the friend broke into his car.
That right there should be a lawyer's paradise. They should have had enough evidence to show the buddy is an unreliable witness and dismiss the whole thing, but the DA goes to my friend who's still in jail and says this: It's your first felony, we'll get you probation only if you plea bargain now (oh, plus fines and this all being on his record and things..) the caveat being if he fights it then the plea goes away and they'll push for 5-20 years in prison. Additionally he doesn't qualify for appointed representation because his salary (which was lost due to him being in jail) is too high.
So what would you do in that situation? Go to prison on principal because you're innocent and your buddy is a poor liar, but somehow they made the case stick? Do you take that chance or accept the plea bargain?
I really suggest you retain a lawyer or pursue law if you think you're onto something new and exciting. The truth of the matter is that the 5th amendment is there to protect anyone who may be innocent and you can't know what circumstances they would need to use those rights without careful study of the law (lawyers can research and find example cases for you for a fee if you wish)
Do not talk to the cops,
Your house is broken into / your car is stolen.
Do you talk to the cops?
You witness a violent crime - You have a good description of the perp and you manage to get the license plate number of his car.
Do you talk to the cops?
Your mother has been taken to the hospital, is near death, and you're pulled over for speeding on your way there.
Do you talk to the cops?
There is no right answer to this conundrum simply because there are too many variables.
-Some policemen will be honourable sticklers for the rules and would never interpret silence as a sign of guilt.
-Alternatively, some take the default position that silence = something to hide.
-Some are masters of language and will twist what little you have or have not said to make you squirm and say more.
-Plus you never know what other people are saying, are they making a liar out of you?
Rather than try to answer an unanswerable question, it would be better for people to be more educated about how law enforcement works so that they can make informed decisions should they find themselves in a situation where a policeman is asking questions.
The British shot people too. The reason we have a protection against self incrimination is the history of American colonists being forced by the British to confess to crimes they didn't commit. Many law enforcement personnel attempt to do this constantly. To them it is a game and they win if you confess. Truth plays no role.
From the article: "would he really hand over his license and registration and then sit silently in the driver's seat refusing to respond the cop's questions (which pretty much eliminates your chance at being let off with a warning)? "
Right there you admit that the police will act differently toward silent citizens even if those citizens have every right to remain silent. THAT is the problem. That is coercion and it happens as a routine part of current policing.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
What's that? A video made several years ago doesn't answer the question you just fucking asked? Travesty!
Actually, it is good for the legal system, because if you had Clue 1 what you were talking about you would know that a just and effective legal system is based on the consideration of evidence, not coerced confessions. You know who bases their legal systems off coercion? Fascists.
For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence.
You don't see the problem with a legal system that punishes people for exercising their legal rights? Wow. Just... just wow. Pray this moron never ends up on your jury, Slashdot.
So, again you point out that one of your main arguments is that a years old video doesn't answer questions you just asked.
Jesus Christ, it's like being interrogated by a third grader! What's next, responding to every answer with, "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?"
It's not necessarily that they're corrupt; if you had actually payed attention to the materials you're critiquing, you would know that police officers are trained to treat everyone as a suspect, to use every word you say AGAINST YOU in court (Obviously Bennett Hasselton has never actually read the Miranda Rights), and to attempt to get "criminals," i.e. citizens who have not yet been convicted, to implicate themselves. It's the system that's corrupted, an obvious fact that this cockmuncher seems to have completely missed, either by deliberation or by virtue of the fact that he's a fucking knob.
Bennett Hasselton, don't quit your day job.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm committing a crime next Saturday. I'm going to fit a new light in the garden. As this is external wiring, it's considered a notifiable change: I am legally required to inform the local building control authority of the modification before starting. I'm not going to because no-one ever does - it's just your basic motion-sensing security light, available in every DIY store, and even in Argos. There must be hundreds of thousands of them installed by householders around the country without sending a formal notification of commencement.
Here in Illinois, Bennett....your argument falls apart. Completely. I will also say this: you really don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion amounts to a fart in a wind tunnel to me, a resident of the State of Illinois, land of John Burge.
Here in Illinois, police have a long and storied history of bending the evidence to fit their theory of the crime, rather than let facts alone lead them to the truth of the matter.
Here in Illinois, police, prosecutors, and the criminal justice system have their finger on the needle.
Kevin Fox, Jerry Hobbes, Rolando Cruz. These are people who, in good faith....spoke to the police. These are *just* a few. Each of them had to fight to clear their names in the face of police and prosecutors who were bound and determined to make sure they could make a case against who they focused on. Why, the prosecutor in the Hobbes case, when confronted with DNA Evidence that someone else raped and murdered a child....rather than admit Hobbes was innocent, claimed the girl (aged 8) had sex with someone else before she was raped and murdered. Michael Waller (who was the Lake Co. Prosecutor) had reams of cases where he behaved like this. Illinois prosecutors and police enjoy an overly broad immunity from the damage they do.
So spare me your "insight", Bennett, because you are woefully ignorant on this topic. Try living in a State where "shortcuts to indictment and trial" are policy number one for the Criminal Justice system.
We abolished the death penalty in this state. Why? Because our system has been so corrupted, so polluted with people who sit in seats of inscrutable power they have nothing to fear in the destruction of a member of the general citizenry. Your "opinion" is offensive, insofar as it fails to weigh the stark reality of life. Police want to clear cases. Their procedure for doing so has become tainted, and through that have tainted the adversarial nature of the justice system. When the police think your guilty, whether you are or not....framing the evidence to fit their theory of what happened becomes the way to get that person on trial. Facts start to matter less, as they become twisted...or even denied in the race to put people in prison.
I suggest if you want to navel gaze, you actually do some research into this topic. As a resident of Chicago I am absolutely appalled that we can't properly fund our school system but the city has paid out a total of 80 million dollars to settle cases *just* for John Burge alone.
The Fifth Amendment was a wise one. The police are *not* your friends in a criminal investigation, especially if they don't have all the facts, or have half the facts and want to drill for more. Kevin Fox wound up arrested, and charged for the murder of his own daughter, despite the fact police had EVIDENCE that pointed to another person, BEFORE they even ran the DNA which eventually cleared him. When police and prosecutors do this, it's the rest of us innocent taxpayers who have to foot the bill.
Supernaut
No, you just don't volunteer anything.
You are forgetting the second part, without a lawyer.
If they ask if you know why they pulled you over you can say no even if you suspect why. You can't know what another person is thinking.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I have helped many innocent people from getting wrongfully convicted. Mostly because the police and prosecution did a crappy job, but also because of my clients following my advice by not talking to the cops without me being present.
Bennett Haselton bases his counter points from TV shows like Law and Order, which shows his amateurism. He also selectively dis-acknowledge good points mentioned by Duane.
Overall, you need to go to law school and be a criminal defense lawyer.
if you want to go to jail...
this guy does not know what he is talking about...here's a few that stood out (among a field of many!)
This is a young-earth creationist-level understanding of the term "sampling error"
Lawyers do not know science unless they made a point to specialize in it or have worked in research. It really bothers me, as researcher who has had to deal with lawyer bullshit for human trials, that in America in the 21st Century lawyers are this bad. This dumbness is not unique unfortunately.
Some aren't, but anyone taking legal advice from someone who says this is certainly bound for trouble.
Look, I can't really explain how ridiculous this statement...it's like saying, "Finally, is facebook.com really that corrupt and/or stupid" when wondering how much of your data is ok to give them access to
______
ok...this idiot aside...to the question of the "Don't Talk to Cops" video...i understand that it comes off as overkill, but please remember who the intended audience is!
some people are just too stubborn or self-deluded and dumb to have the wherewithall to speak to the police at all...they really will fuck it up just answering basic questions...
those people need the inflexibility presented in "Don't Talk to Cops" because they are **precisely** the innocent/dumb types that entrepreneurial law enforcement prey upon
Thank you Dave Raggett
If your house is broken into, you call only if the insurance requires it, same with car. If your insurance will provide one or you can afford it get a lawyer. They will suspect you do it, if only because it makes their lives easier.
If you have that information call them from a pay phone. Else you get a lawyer and let him report that information for you.
You keep your mouth shut take the damn ticket and go to the hospital.
People regularly accuse the police of being corrupt and stupid when the truth of the matter is the issue is simple indifference. The actual problem is that they are tasked with an unreasonable job with a contemptible performance metric.
The job of the police is simply to arrest someone. That is how they close a case. In the instance where they have someone in an interview room or stop someone on the street or a traffic stop they are looking for anything that they might be able to prove to a degree that a prosecutor could convict you. It doesn't have to be true. They honestly don't care. The majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. If they happen to arrest someone innocent thats ok because the guilty party will eventually be arrested for something else.
The defect in the OP argument is that he fails to realize the performance metric that police are measured by. And he clearly fails to reach the conclusion that sending the innocent to jail or prison is bad for society.
The 5th amendment is one of the sole protections that allows the innocent to protect themselves in a situation when the actual guilty party is not known.
The police and prosecutors lose no sleep regarding getting someone innocent to confess to a crime. Even if there is actual evidence that conflict with statements made in a confession. People like the OP watch too many technical procedural crime dramas on TV. Crime dramas that lead people to assume that the police and prosecutors will only arrest and charge someone if all the evidence in a crime fits the person they decide to accuse.
He's an ex-cop who makes videos about all the extremely shady tactics cops use to get a drug bust; including lying to gain access to your property where they would have no rights to search or manipulating search dogs to create fake drug hits.
I have no clue who this Haselton guy is, but he sounds like douche. I got 1/3 through the article and decided he's not worth listening to. Find Barry Cooper's videos and you'll understand why. Yes cops ARE that corrupt.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
In rebuttal to item five, I have to point out: Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Department in their handling of the Duke lacrosse team case. I also have to point out the behavior, documented on video, of the police in the numerous cases where they've been filmed physically beating suspects long after those suspects were physically incapable of resisting (or where the suspect wasn't resisting in the first place), threatening people and arresting them for documenting police activity while clearly not interfering with it, tazing someone who was bedridden and physically incapable of being any threat to the officers... the list of unreasonable activities just seems to grow. So when someone asks whether the police could be that corrupt, incompetent and/or malicious, I have to say the evidence doesn't support an answer in the negative.
If you make such a statement AND the case goes to trial, then absolutely you should expect something like this. Why? The posed question is supposedly asked by the prosecution and phrased to get this exact response. The question is not, "Read me the transcript of the interview." It is up to the defense to present the other side of the case. This is the way the system is designed to work, and it is a reason to have a competent attorney, not a reason to make fundamental changes to the system.
Is it wholly un-American to think that this whole article, the subject overall and this discussion are absurd, when talking about a civilized democratic country? I mean, discussion about bad stuff about police, sure, but this reeks of things having gone to the next level, something you'd expect in a 3rd world totalitarian "democratic republic".
Which society do you want to live in:
a. One where police can compel anyone to give testimony about themselves so that all crimes are solved by someone confessing to them, or
b. One where innocent people have the right to STFU and the state is required to actually do police work, interview witnesses, gather evidence, and otherwise build a case against suspects?
The only way you can be opposed to the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself is to be completely ignorant of history and utterly devoid of imagination. Frankly, there wasn't a single argument above that wasn't utter bullshit, a troll, or the ramblings of someone who wanted to take a contrary stance just for the sake of being contrary.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Really, you should have ended right here:
"...Fifth Amendment lets you refuse to answer the question of whether you even committed the crime at all, and I didn't see what was so great about that, because it is everybody's legitimate business whether or not you committed the crime."
Here's why: You don't have to say shit to anyone about anything who is accusing you of a crime. The onus is completely on them to provide the evidence. They can ask a judge for warrants to search your person or property, but NO ONE can compel you to answer any questions as long as you tell them that you invoke your 5th amendment privileges and refuse to answer *any and all* questions. Once you begin answering questions you open yourself up to having anything you say used against you in a court of law, and NO ONE wants that.
Next on Slashdot: Why we should not invade Iraq.
What, you don't think we will be asking ourselves that once more in a few years?
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
I read about Bennett Haselton and he seems to be a darling of the ACLU but then here he is preaching that people should throw themselves on the mercy of the police and their awesome ability to make intelligent decisions. He then cites guilty people who he thinks weren't stupid to talk to the police. So I give the example of Sergey Aleynikov who carefully explained his position to the FBI who then saw his explanation as a confession and threw him in jail. If he had kept his mouth shut and only talked to his lawyers I suspect we would never have heard of Sergey Aleynikov.
The key here is that the US court system is largely an adversarial system. For good or bad this means that you should be very wary about cooperating with "The other side". The justice system is not rewarded for ensuring your innocence. They are punished if they don't convict enough people though.
He then tries to poke holes in the guys arguments by taking his positions to their literal extremes. This would be like taking the very intelligent expression "Never catch a falling knife" to include when it is falling toward a baby.
Mr. Haselton, we already - from your previous articles* - know that you are a statist. Please go shill for the state/ administration / party elsewhere.
I am curious about why you (or anyone) would cheerlead for totalitarianism. You are never going to be able to turn off your telescreen while you enjoy cigarettes and coffee. You will never be a member of the Inner Party. You will never be the boot. You will be the face under it. So answer, if you can, why are you pushing for your fellow citizens to be stripped of their rights? What is in it for you?
* Your first 'question' cannot be answered because you have set conditions that preclude any answer other than the one you are looking for. Your second was equally flawed. All of your rants omit essential facts concerning the history and context of the fifth amendment and indeed the first eight amendments.
In fact, in the 'rebuttal' video from Officer Bruch, he says at the 6:20 mark:
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
The determination of guilt/innocence isn't the cops job. They are there to round up suspects and collect evidence to support a prosecutor's court case. Being in a police interrogation room implies a type of detention. Technically, you are in police custody and that can escalate into an 'official' arrest at any time the police officer desires. If they just need some information from you, they can meet you at some public* place.
* Don't invite them into your home. Once they've got their foot in the door, it can be difficult to get them back out. All they have to do is to declare your residence as some sort of crime scene. Your best bet is to meet in the establishment of some (friendly) third party. You can sit down over a cup of coffee and answer all the questions you want. But if the interview seems to go against you, you give your buddy a sign and he withdraws the invitation for the police officer to be on his premises. The cops leaves or he gets charged with trespassing.
Have gnu, will travel.
Not this shit again.
Let me condense the argument. I, as an individual, want as many rights and protections as possible. I couldn't give a toss if there's an argument that they're redundant, I'd rather have the rights than not.
That means advocating that other people should have more rights too. Yes, even bad people. A right that is occasionally abused doesn't mean a de facto argument for its removal.
Isn't the balance of power between the individual and enormous entities (government, corporations etc.) imbalanced enough without advocating for the removal of more rights?
Then I read his article and had my answer: a pedantic nitwit who lacks the historical understanding of corrupt power.
The 5th Amendment, as with the others in the "Bill of Rights," was designed with the intent to guarantee an individual's liberty against encroachment by the State. The genesis arose from the Crown's ignoble history of coercing confessions under torture and duress, then using said confession as the centerpiece in some mummer's farce of a trial to imprison or execute the persons.
To examine such a precept through the lens of its utilitarian value to broader society is to fail completely to understand at all its reason for being. If we are to do so, then the author must accept that the consequences of abolishing the 5th will likely include a further degradation of our society into an authoritarian police state that will compel and coerce confessions from citizens. We need look no further than Abu Ghraib to see the truth in this. In this light, it's very simple to make the argument that the 5th Amendment is one of the essential protections that maintains ours as a "free" society.
Furthermore, it's been well-established that eyewitness and other human testimonials are consistently the least reliable evidence allowed at trials. Frankly, that we still allow for them to be used as the sole basis for indictment and conviction in this modern era of the NSA and forensic science baffles the rational mind.
...then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
I read most of the way through your rebuttal, only to find you making the very point that completely invalidates your rebuttal. And that's the truth, the system is broken. Maybe at some hypothetical point in history, the point was to find the criminal. But now, the system is focused on getting a conviction. Any conviction will do. You don't just get charged with *a* crime anymore. Instead, even a minor incident can see you charged with 10-15 separate crimes. Why? Because even if you are innocent of the main crime, they hope that at least one will 'stick' so they can justify their time and energy. No concern is made as to how innocent or guilty you might be. They just want to get you with something.
For most people any serious charges will result in financial ruin and perhaps a couple of years in jail awaiting trial. Imagine being accused of rape. If you are arrested your job is gone and perhaps your professional credentials as well. Your wife and family will probably be gone and if you can't make a very large bail your home, your car and your savings can vanish as well. So obviously for most people accused of rape and if they are really innocent it is best to talk to the cops. The next issue is whether the detectives believe you or not. Many times they don't know and will simply want the courts to sort it out. A trial is a brutal form of punishment in and of itself.
In the end it shakes out like this: If people said absolutely nothing to the cops they would be found not guilty a lot more often. However a lot of people would be ruined that might have converted a really bad situation into a small inconvenience simply by talking to the cops. But if you get into a situation with a corrupt or rogue cop you really will be in it up to your ears. There are cops in this world who would stick a bag of dope in your pocket and gleefully make a false arrest simply because your brother dated a girl the cop wanted etc..That stuff is a lot more common than most people think.
The article quoted one rap celebrity saying that he wouldn't even tell the police about a known murderer living next door to him. ...and I wouldn't say anything either. If you give the police even the slightest hint that you know something, the threats about obstruction, lying, aiding/abetting or complicity start coming from the police. Better to let them do their jobs, or tip them off anonymously.
"even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating."
No. No no no. A thousand times no. If the cops are talking to you about something that could involve a prison sentence, you SHUT THE HELL UP, and you only talk to your LAWYER. You're out of your depth, and the cops do this every day. The point is you have NO MECHANISM to be 99% sure the cops will find enough evidence, and fear of prosecution / hope for leniency are EXACTLY the tools and emotions police use to get confessions in an interview. Keep your mouth SHUT and talk to your lawyer to find out what's really going on, and what you should be doing.
This is NOT the same as a speeding ticket. If you end up with the worst possible punishment for the average speeding ticket, you'll be inconvenienced but otherwise just fine.
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Didn't there used to be some slashdot option to not display articles from editors or submitters who clearly have nothing to say and no value to add? I seem to recall using it to mute some pretty grevious submitter-trolls in the past.
Can't seem to find it now in Slashdot's Brave New World of terribad UI design.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The article quoted one rap celebrity saying that he wouldn't even tell the police about a known murderer living next door to him.
Well, how did you know the guy next door was a murderer? Are you covering up for him? Complicit in some of his activities? We're slapping the cuffs on you too, buddy. Keep in mind that a lot of what the cops do is just to harass people they don't like. No, they could probably never build a case against the neighbor. But if they get him to make a few mis-statements, they have probable cause to have him spend a few nights in jail. And that was probably the goal at the outset: Hassle the guy we don't like.
The other side of the coin: We had a case a few years back involving some incidents of child molestation at a local boys and girls club. Eventually, they nabbed a minister who was volunteering at the place and charged him. But the interesting part (which actually was pointed out by our local news media) was that the case had to be investigated by an outside police agency rather than the local cops. We have had ongoing problems in this town of this nature for literally decades. And the cops don't do much about it because the people involved are "the good old boys". And interviewing friends, neighbors, an co-workers might reveal more guilty parties. We don't want to bring the high and mighty into police interrogation rooms or they might slip and admit that they've been passing some of the kids around themselves. So this is a case of the cops saying "Don't talk to the cops."
Have gnu, will travel.
Duane spends about thirty seconds of his entire lecture talking about why the fifth amendment exists, then the rest of the time saying that if you have it use it because whether you're guilty or innocent you're better off than if you don't. In the supreme court's own words "one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Or as Cardinal Richelieu put it, "Give me six words of an innocent man, and I will find something in them with which to hang him" Your own words contribute nothing to your defense but can easily be used as circumstantial evidence to convict, for example if you know you are innocent but you are a suspect and was very near the scene of the crime but there's no witnesses to that. Are you going to give the jury rope to hang you by or make yourself a felon?
You are already making the "information-less" guilty plea, if you plead not guilty but the court ends up finding you guilty anyway that's sort of saying you were lying. Anything else you're trying to do by compelling the accused is to try to extract information from him that could be used to catch him in a lie about something else. I hope Bennet Haselton gets stuck between a rock and a hard place and get the choice between having to answer true, appear guilty and go to jail or lie, get caught and go to jail. Maybe from his jail cell he can get a new perspective on the meaning and purpose of the fifth amendment.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A defensive shooting is a prime example. I shoot someone in self-defense. Should I talk or not? Whether I should depends on that particular prosecutor and any pressure put upon him.
A while back a black lady shot through her door at a robber who she says was about to kick it in. The police and prosecutor realized a clear case of self defense and she was not prosecuted. Anything she said would be helpful to her case.
Now take Zimmerman. The police on the scene determined that it was also a clear case of self defense. But the prosecutor, succumbing to political pressure and likely looking for a career boost, decided to prosecute anyway. Now anything Zimmerman said to explain his self defense was available to be used against him.
In short, if you don't know the mind of the prosecutor, you can't know whether to speak. A similar dicision faced the Duke Lacrosse players, not knowing that Nifong intended to advance his career on their incarcerated backs.
Better not to talk.
"Even if that scenario is a valid reason not to talk to the police, it wouldn't be possible in a courtroom, where all of your answers are recorded, and it will be obvious if someone is trying to distort the meaning of something that you said earlier."
No. That's just not right.
In 1992 I spent several hours giving testimony in a trial involving murder. The defendant in this trial was NOT the individual that actually pulled the trigger but instead was seen as being in a "leadership" role. My testimony involved his character and whether or not it was in his nature to give such an order for murder - or if the killer acted without instructions and on his own.
During my testimony, I repeated stressed that it was not in the character for the defendant to give such an order; he was a pacifist who had often walked away from provocations and even mediated internal disagreements within the organization. It was clear to me, and I did my best to articulate it to the court, that giving such an order was so far outside of the defendant's character that I found it impossible to conceive he would do such a thing. I also gave testimony as to the personality of the actual killer, who was well known to me as a bad-tempered, short-sighted, and unruly fellow.
When I finished my testimony, the defendant's family thanked me for my supporting testimony. However, in the end, my testimony was twisted around and used as a central part of the prosecution's argument to convict the defendant - in essence my mention of his prior mediations and the absence of any mediation in the matter at trial was distorted to imply that by his lack of mediations he was tacitly giving an order. Despite everything being on record, and having been said in front of the jury, my meaning and intent was distorted into exactly the opposite of what I intended to convey. Anyone that thinks such distortions, "wouldn't be possible in a courtroom", simply has never been involved in a serious trial.
To this day, more than 20 years later, that defendant is still in prison serving a life sentence. His every attempt at an appeal has failed. Meanwhile, one of the two men that actually pulled triggers has been released (because he 'accepted responsibility for his crime, thus indicating successful rehabilitation').
Some might claim that my personal anecdotal evidence represents something uncommon - I wish I could believe that - but even so, when a claim is made that something "wouldn't happen" it only takes one example to prove that it certainly can happen. If I had never talked to the police, that defendant would never have been convicted.
Remember, if the cop is talking to you in the interview room, he believes you are guilty. It doesn't matter if you are or not, he believes you are. He doesn't want to drag an innocent person into that room and he doesn't want an innocent person to be prosecuted, but he does NOT believe any of that matters there because he believes you are guilty.
Because he believes you are guilty, anything you say will be filtered through confirmation bias. Anything he says in court will be filtered by the prosecutor, during and to an extent BEFORE the trial.
Now, on to the 3 people names. Start w/ Martha Stewart. You say yourself that that one is questionable. You have your doubts. What does doubt mean in criminal cases again? Right! So I guess she should have remained silent.
In the Marion Jones case, she got 6 months for lying to federal officials. Out of all the cloud of stuff thrown at her, that's the best they could manage. Do I think it's A-OK to use steroids in competition? No, I do not. However, if we're going to start jailing everyone whose ever cheated in sports, we're going to need more jails. In any event, that's not what she was convicted of. She was convicted for saying she didn't do that to federal officials who wanted to prosecute someone else, even though it was in the context of not incriminating herself. Ultimately, had she simply remained silent, she might have avoided criminal prosecution, but the rest probably would have come out anyway. If federal officials don't want to be lied to, they need to respect an unwillingness to answer their questions at all.
Vick was not a great example. I believe he did what they say he did. Even there though, it is a bit disturbing that his sentencing weighed factors such as failing a polygraph as aggravating circumstances. Did they ask the magic 8-ball while they were at it? what was the result of the seance?
Now, on to the main question. Should a person have the right to not self-incriminate, even when it is just a yes/no question? Yes, absolutely. Do you want an innocent person held for questioning until they give the 'true' answer to "Did you rob that store?"? I think not. The absolute right to not self-incriminate prevents exactly that. He invokes and then the police have to either cut him loose or press charges. No matter how much they believe he did it (even though he didn't), they can't keep asking him over and over in a dozen different ways until he gets tired and confused enough to inadvertently self-incriminate (and you'd better believe in court they won't mention that he was so fatigued at that point that he got his own name wrong).
Any arguments of Bob vs. Alice are simply resolved by stating that Alice likewise has every right to remain silent.
As for point 5, YES!!! And I'll expand it to include the prosecutor's office and the courts as well. We are living in a world where a convicted man in jail is proven innocent beyond any doubt by new forensic methods (DNA) and the DA continues to argue against his release and the courts for some reason entertain his arguments. If keeping a man imprisoned after evidence a school child could understand has proven him innocent is not a corruption, I don't know what is.
We routinely see well proven felons getting a special break on their sentence in exchange for fabricating testimony to convict someone else. Sure, prosecutors claim not to know the testimony is false but REALLY?!? They look at a guy who has been in and out of jail repeatedly for lying, cheating, and stealing who now has practically nothing to lose but everything to gain and they suddenly believe every word he says?
So YES! There is corruption and YES it is that bad.
Why do you inflict us your misanthropic and stupid interpretation of what due process should be ? This topic has been studied by generations of constitutional layers and have been beaten to death. Just open a book, instead of inflicting your naive refutations to the Slashdot crowd. All your questions are answered in first grade law school. Either you know, and this is very disingenuous, or you don't and you should just read and shut up.
Plain and simple, you make the fallacious assumptions that:
The government will always be acting in the best interest of the citizens,
Innocent people are not regularly prosecuted and face cruel and unusual punishements which do not fit the crimes. Google: "copyright violation suicide"
That Parallel Construction doesn't exist (it does, and is admitted as standard practice).
Furthermore, get bent. I do what I think is best in the given circumstance because laws are not sentient, idiots.
And now for a rebuttal to this inane garbage, McGarnagle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjbl9QBrM50
Never talk to the police!
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Buried in the article is this: "...the laws they were being charged under, were unjust in the first place, but that's a separate problem."
This is the root problem, together with the fact that the punishments are completely disproportionate in many cases.
A completely hypothetical example. I see some teenagers tagging a wall. In my view they are delinquents, should be made to clean up their mess, apologize and do some community service. Once completed, the matter is forgotten. If that were the outcome, I would not hesitate to call the cops.
But in reality, they will get arrested, jail time, school suspension, a criminal record for life that will completely screw up the possibility of getting a job and being a productive member of society, all over a stupid teenager prank. So no, I won't talk to the cops.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The lesson â" other than that criminal justice often has little to do with actual justice â" is this: for God's sake shut up. Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just clearing this one thing up." Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops. Every time.
SHUT UP.
http://www.popehat.com/?s=shutup
The basic premise of your whole argument "The Fifth amendment means that person need not answer 'Yes' or 'No' when asked the question 'Did you commit the crime'" is simple wrong and untrue. IF someone is charged with a crime and arraigned, they must THEN enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" and cannot at that time "refuse to answer". The context is key -- this questioning happens in a courtroom in front of a judge, with a lawyer present, and not in a back room somewhere. The same protections apply to a 3rd party being questioned -- they DON'T have to answer unless they are subpoenaed and in that case can have a lawyer present. Of course, insisting on these full legal protections might make the police suspicious that they are involved, but that is kind of tough to avoid.
Hint: Lying to get conviction seems to be a good career move for law enforcement.
Hint: There is practically no repercussions for lying police officers.
Hint: Being interrogated by the police is an extremely troubling/tiring experience, so keeping your mouth shut makes sense.
Hint: If you are interrogated, the police thinks you might be guilty, in this situation they might be only looking for for stuff that fits with their world view.
Hint: Considering that police officers try to make you talk, if it's so clear cut, they wouldn't need your input.
So yes, despite the fact that the huge majority of police officers are trying to do an ethical job, personally, the police is almost certainly never your friend. The tiny area where they are the good guys are all centered around other activities than interrogation.
I'd like to rate this story down. There's no reason this person's perspective is of any stature to warrant being put on the front page of a site like this.
Seriously, flawed rebuttal from an ivory tower armchair legal "analyst". Is /. now the soapbox for every nutter who wants to spew crazy on the net?
Look at what happens when a police officer commits a crime. Not only does he shut up, so do all of his buddies.
That's *all* you need to know.
Do you have ESP?
I've never been interrogated, but once when I was 20 there was a string of robberies in my neighborhood and apparently the small-town neighborhood called in two detectives from New York to investigate (it was a pretty wealthy neighborhood in New Jersey). They pulled me over on my bike at like 2 in the morning and started questioning me (trying to do the good cop, bad cop). When they asked to search my backpack, I told them I didn't think they had probable cause. Then I told them that if they weren't going to arrest me I was going to go home, so I left and they couldn't do anything about it.
I didn't do anything wrong. My belief was that it's important that every person upholds their rights, otherwise we risk losing them. But my refusal to cooperate apparently started an in-depth investigation on me. I was told by a guy who had been arrested that police showed him a picture of me on my way to work and asked him what they knew about me. If I had done something wrong, they probably would have found it.
It's fine to not cooperate with the police, but take note that if you refuse to cooperate it will make them suspicious of you.
On that note, by brother is a sheriff. He tells me that police will usually let you off if you're honest with them, since so few people are honest with them. I've gotten off for speeding on multiple occasions by just being honest with the police.
Who the fuck is Bennett Haselton? And if he doesn't understand why we have the Fifth Amendment, why should we even bother reading his other opinions about rights and justice?
And in my experience if they're going to give you a warning, they don't ask a bunch of questions, they just give you a lecture and ask you if you understand/agree to do better. If they're questioning you about the details of your infraction, you're not getting a warning you're going to be cited. Your only way out is if they get a more important call before they get the ticket written. (And these days you might just get it in the mail instead)
(From this aptly named entry)
Be who you are...and be it in style!
The last article about whether or not we have a need for the 5th set up very strict guidelines that pretty much rendered any decent use of the amendment pointless.This time, you've admitted that the two things being presented here don't go hand-in-hand:
1. The video is answering a different question from the one I asked
and
4. Professor Duane's argument is about talking to the cops; I'm asking about the merits of the Fifth Amendment as it applies in a courtroom as well
So, you two aren't talking about the same things, but you're trying to pick a fight over it? I don't understand the lack of logic here - so, in the discussion about whether or not we need the 5th (and your other post in relation to the 5th), people in the comments pointed to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video, likely not in direct response to you but to other people on the comments. Nevermind, just checked, and a couple were direct replies to you with links to the video. Still, if it doesn't apply to your argument, as you state in #1 and pretty much further in #4, then why do you feel a need for a rebuttal?
RAWWWWWWRRRRRR so mad, just please leave your 5th Amendment crap to yourself and let us not worry about having to see this crap on the front page again, please?
This guy is known for running a website that supports the First Amendment but he argues that the Fifth is a a detriment to society?
So you have the right to openly and freely speak your mind, but you dont have the right to NOT openly and freely speak your mind? Could you please cite some arguments on how these two views dont completly contradict one another?
Or are you just speaking out your back end? I'll simply asume you're wrong until you speak to me directly about it, because clearly by choosing not to speak you are admiting I am correct. See how that works?
I call it the "Police Skew". I'll give you a example. Lets say you got into a fight. A person punched you and you punched them back. The officer asks you what happened and you say "He punched me and I defended myself and punched him back". In the police report it ends up like "Suspect admitted to striking the other person." We see this type of thing constantly in the media. Look at recorded interactions with the police and then read the police report. You will see this type of thing all over the place.
Is it really a felony to lie to the police in the US?
It's usually a misdemeanor though not always. Being allowed to lie to police (sometimes greatly) increases the chance of a miscarriage of justice and constitutes obstruction of justice in many cases. You ALWAYS have the legal right to not talk to the police without council present. This is to avoid self incrimination under the 5th amendment aside from some simple exceptions like identifying yourself if asked. There are a lot of nuances but basically it is reasonable to require truthful answers in the course of an appropriate criminal investigation. If you lie while under oath that is considered perjury which is often a felony.
That stinks, and even worse if they truly prosecute otherwise innocent people for it.
Actually it works rather well in practice most of the time. It just means that you need to take any discussions you have with police seriously as you should.
If the 5th amendment applied during interrogation, then no one could confess. Every case would go to trial. You can refuse to talk to police. Miranda rights apply when talking to police, AFTER GETTING ARRESTED. The summary is that there is nothing that you can say to help yourself until you get to court. By saying nothing there is nothing that the prosecution can hold against you.
Are we, as a people, comfortable with the current level of power the executive branch and all its little tentacles in state and local jurisdictions has, and appears to be gaining? Is there no legitimate reason to give the individual ANY protection from them? I say emphatically yes indeed, and opinions and attempts to take away what little he/she has left are heinous and to be fought with extreme vigour. Its every citizen's duty to reject the constant encrouchment of the Fed on our rights. Haselton has swallowed the blue pill with the kool-aid.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Would it not be more beneficial for your attorney to arrange some plea deal? As somebody who is not an expert on criminal law, I would keep my mouth shut until I talked to my attorney. I'd let the expert on criminal justice decide if it was worth confessing instead of hoping for the best.
More importantly, his argument relies on the presumption that "the police [will] testify to the judge that you were cooperative." That presumption may hold true in the movies or on television, but in reality, the police never do anything of the sort.
With the recent Supreme Court ruling that silence denotes guilt essentially gutting the 5th, clearly your dreams of removing this detriment to society have come true. What size Jack Boot do you wear?
"The proposed idea is juvenile and not worth debating, but typical of the kind of nonsense that Libertarians think is worth their time to discuss."
That's the entire history of Slashdot.
Yup, I just meant don't talk yourself into another ticket. No reason to speculate and risk another ticket for that burned out tail light or something.
.....of why IT nerds should refrain from talking about law. And the chuckles that wrote this "article" is no different.
To wit (this is but one example): ""Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'"
Yes. Go look at the "statement against party interest" exception to the heresay rule. Then go watch a criminal trial and you will see the police do *exactly* that.
The author here in too uneducated to make the refuations he is trying to make nor is he showing the drive necessary to gain knowledge that would answer his question for him.
This is the polar opposite of libertarianism. Do you not have access to a dictionary?
You have to understand that authoritarians, when they get mad, just shout "libertarian!" like a panic sound. They're not smart enough or well-read enough to understand what that means (because if they were smart and well-read they wouldn't be authoritarians) but they have, as a group, figured out that libertarians are their mortal enemies.
It's like when the grass on the savanna moves, the successful human's first thought is "lion!" It's not usually a lion, but that reaction serves people well, because the cost of "just a breeze" is so high when that's an error.
So, when a neophyte political philosopher posts some nonsense suggesting we gut one of our most fundamental civil liberties, "libertarian!" can be seen as an expected response from all but the most deeply committed of authoritarians (who would just nod and perhaps murmur, "good idea").
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes. Not all of them of course, it's a 99% give the other 1% a bad name type of situation; I jest. I know the majority probably joined to make the place better, but there are plenty that joined to crack skulls, and you cant weed them out because no one wants to be a rat.
Rocket Surgeon.
Also, the thing about good lawyers is that, well, you don't hear about them much. Just like friendly IT workers (as opposed to BOFH's), bad managers, etc. Few people will log on to a forum to talk about a "good guy" VS a real bastard.
I've had a good lawyer before. I had drafted up a letter regarding an injury to a business (which was being evasive), and he reviewed it and basically send it through on letterhead. Not a lot of work, but still worth his time.
In the end, the company's insurance company stepped in, told said company to stop being doucheballs, and treated me like a human. I told the lawyer that I didn't see an immediate need to sue since the insurance company was being reasonable, and asked what I owed. He let me guy without charge and just asked that if I actually went to court that I keep him in mind for services (which I didn't end up needing). So yeah, he helped me out, didn't charge, and in my books is genuinely a decent guy.
Yes, and there are many, many documented cases where a cop became convinced of someone's guilt contrary to later evidence, and then went to extreme measures to find something to charge them with. The Constitution is meant to prevent abuses of power at all levels of government, and the Fifth Amendment is one of them. And this shows the lie in your claim of sampling error: you never know what kind of cop you're talking to, or what he thinks of you and how his perceptions affect his belief in your guilt or innocence.
Duane is absolutely correct that talking to the police can never, ever help you. Since you seem so confused about Duane's message, it's not "no one should ever talk to the police", it's simply "anyone who isn't a expert in criminal law should not talk to the police on any criminal matter (and don't represent yourself either)"; the latter addendum is because there are many psychological compulsions people have when being accused that can easily bypass one's better judgment.
And your analyses of the downsides of the fifth amendment are ridiculously one-sided. You consider the scenarios where the 5th is less than ideal without considering any contrary scenarios that it was intended to address (many of which were raised in your previous articles -- and I know this because I raised a few, none of which you addressed). That's intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Statists gonna state.
At least post your criminal plans anonymously!
Criminals really are stupid....
You can't be coerced into providing witness testimony. You don't have to speak to the cops even if you are just a witness UNLESS the state offers you immunity. If you are offered immunity, then you can be coerced. But I doubt that's what the OP was talking about. If it is, then his diatribe makes even less sense that it tries to make.
Derp. Of course, I go and accidently type "4th".
If only we could down moderate submissions. Especially dangerously ignorant ones.
Believe it or not innocent people are found guilty. You may read the study performed by Ron Huff and Martin Killias, or search for the number of overturned convictions.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
As I said in my first article, that doesn't mean that this is not a valid argument for the Fifth Amendment. But it means that if this is the primary argument in favor of the Fifth Amendment, then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
If your own narrow definition of a working system is one without flaws, then per your definition alone we're saying the whole system is broken.
However the truth is that not allowing somebody to remain silent, gives the State the power to force them to speak. This power is so great that it gave rise to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition.
The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the [384 U.S. 436, 443] questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English, as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment."
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596 -597 (1896).
Though I grabbed the quote from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
I'm a lawyer, and I think the professor's generic, one-size-fits-all advice is clearly wrong. In fact, legal advice not specifically tailored to the individual and the facts of his case is arguably per se malpractice. Of course, this itself is an absolute. But in fairness, it is a maxim, not legal advice.
Disagree? OK, well I am a lawyer, and you are presumably not. So now you're going to give a lawyer advice how to deal with a cop? #
IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Do Not Rely On This As Legal Advice)
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The proper solution, however, is that nobody should be able to trade off of insdier information. Because insider information inherently creates an unfair trading environment.
Still, if you allow some people to make trades based on inside information, you should, in justice, allow everyone to do so.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Police really are that stupid. (It is not corruption.) It's not just police, it is all of us. The prisons are full of innocent people who were put there by cops confident that they can "spot a liar". The cops assertion that he never puts guilty people behind bars is just an empirical farce. Read "Mistakes were made: but not by me" for an in-depth chapter on the problem with police, and talking to them. The whole book is a horror story of quotidian human stupidity. The cops should clean up their act, but that would entail admitting fault. Could you imagine the shame involved with confronting the actual human cost of wrong-headed hubris? Too much for almost anyone.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"Do not talk to the police."
So if a cop pulls you over asks if you have been drinking, and you haven't, you just remain silent? Even if you reek of alcohol because your girlfriend just threw up vodka on your shirt?
"One can never "talk" his or her way out of suspicion"
So if a cop sees you break a car window to get the keys you locked in your car, do you just say, "I want my lawyer" and remain silent? Bullshit.
More nonsense generic legal "advice."
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Please quit. You're initial analysis was weak, and this rebuttal makes you seem like a much less intelligent person than I think you are. Your rationals remind me of the unrigorous positions of a call-in partisan radio show. If you're going to stick with philosophy, try to understand the fundamentals of forming an argument prior to publicizing this amateur manifesto stuff. Reading more from you is a waste of everyone's time until then.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
With the rest of the misinformed, vitriolic, drivel; which nobody reads. Please, no more of this crap on the Slashdot homepage. Thanks!
BTW, James Duane's video does not argue the merits of the 5th Amendment. It merely argues that one should exercise this right to the maximum extent possible.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Ultimately, the best reason to not talk to police (in particular, once they've begun accusing you) is confirmation bias. Once an officer begin to form a belief around your guilt, human psychology takes over and anything you tell him will be molded into the pre-conceived belief without the officer even realizing it. This will happen to officers with the purest of intentions. They're human; they can't help it. Once they have an inkling that you're their guy, everything you say will get warped - on the fly, subconsciously - into either an admission of guilt or a hiding of the truth about your guilt.
There are certainly instances where talking to police is fine, but the instant you have any suspicion any of the officers involved has any doubts about your total lack of involvement in any criminal activity, you need to shut up whether you're guilty or not. Filter all communications through an intelligent lawyer. It'd be nice if we all lived in some Leave it to Beaver fantasy land where every cop is your pal and you can talk it out man to man, but we have a society that's too large and too impersonal for that. The cop doesn't know you and even if he does somewhat, he's got too much experience dealing with scumbags to believe you're one of the few perfect angels he'll have contact with.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I was asking whether the defendant's right to remain silent is good for society as a whole
Just the fact that you would ask that question in the first place tells me you are wholly unqualified to take part in this discussion. Either individuals have rights that society must respect or they don't; you obviously think they do not, so why should anyone even enter into a dialogue with you about the appropriate use of those rights?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Obviously you have had little interaction with the court systems. A prosecuting attorney asks cops and others questions
that they only need answer yes or no, such as "did he say he never liked the guy" and the cops says yes he did say that,
and they do this when there is little chance for rebuttal. The cops are paid to hand out citations, prosecutors want to close
cases so they look good at election time and they really don't care who they pin them on. If you are being accused of a
crime, you are best off not to talk to police without an attorney who sees in advance what angle these people are using
to make things go their way. It is unfortunate these days that it is no longer about who is guilty and who is not, but instead
is about being able to close cases.
LOL, you seem to think you know a lot about me. No reason to get personal. But just for your info, I'm neither immensely wealthy, nor starvingly poor.
We're a nation of laws, and while you can certainly argue the rightness or wrongness of any of them if you care to do so, trading against insider information is illegal. It would have been illegal if she lost money, illegal if she made it.
But in the end, you're defined by how you treat other people. She's an asshole, by all accounts, and while I was joking about this particular item, it's a joke founded in some level of truth. If you disagree, fine. However, the law disagrees with your interpretation of what's "none of anyone's fucking business".
The CB App. What's your 20?
I live in Washington DC -- traffic tickets are unabashedly used as a source of revenue. The city was "broke" (meaning that all the money had been embezzled and they wanted more), and the two proposals were:
1) more red light cameras and parking enforcement
2) let the bars serve booze longer so more alcohol taxes
I really doubt anyone from UK law enforcement reading this is going to consider me worth the effort of tracing down. Plus it'd be a media fiasco as soon as the papers or bloggers got wind of it. I'm not worth someone risking their career over.
3. His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating. [...]
It is pointed out by Professor Duane that the police cannot testify in your favor because anything you say can and will be used against you, but not in your favor. All a prosecutor has to decry is "hearsay" and it is not valid for the court to consider.
Apparently one other poster caught on to this: here
Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
The point of the 5th amendment is to prevent coerced testimony; the police/prosecutor/judge should not even ask the question. This was in response to our forefathers' experience with such concepts as the Star Chamber and crushing people to force confessions.
The benefit to society, in that light, should be obvious: it is a key protection against tyranny, and since it has been weakened, the incidence of torture and abuse by the authorities has skyrocketed.
The unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in, today, is, for the most part, an artifact of the consequences of employing our law enforcement organizations in moral crusades, against drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc. This has had the effect of transforming public perception of the police from being the people you go to if you have a problem to just the biggest gang around, as dangerous (or more so!) than the guy breaking into your house.
Personally, I think that the police and FBI have permanently tarnished their reputations and should be abolished and replaced with something else.
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
So not only has this officer already determined your innocence before taking you into a room, he readily admits that his bias has led to thousands of suspects not being let go and only two or so changing his mind.
How is speaking to this person a good idea?
This is very naive thinking. The justice system isn't about guilt or innocence - it's about convictions and doing what it takes to get those convictions. The justice system couldn't care less if a person is truly innocent if there is enough evidence to convince a jury of guilt.
The title of the video really refers to "Don't talk to the cops, ever, UNTIL YOU HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL." One of the points made in the video is that there is plenty of time for facts to come out during the court process and the time to speak is then, not alone to the cops where you are vulnerable to being tripped up. It is not blanket advise to shut up from arrest to sentence.
He wants everybody to "not talk to the police" so he'll get more business. Seems pretty clear to me.
Of course if you are some stupid criminal, you don't want to talk to the police. And if enough innocent people are stupid enough to think that they should never talk to the police, it certainly makes the police's job harder while making the criminal representing lawyer's job easier. "What'd you say office, my client wouldn't talk to you and it looked suspicious? Well ever since that cool youtube video, 60% of innocent people don't talk to cops either!"
Yeah, basically avoid being a criminal and you don't have much to worry about. Lawyers that represent criminals are not people to trust OK... they aren't a bunch of free information loving computer people on the internet. Far from it.
It's not there to protect society in general, it's there to protect society from government abuse. Without it, the government has the authority to write laws criminalizing silence.
Suppose the government has passed a law banning the sale, possession, and consumption of a generally harmless substance. But you, even though you are not a criminal by any reasonable definition of the word, have decided to consume that substance for your own reasons. Now a police officer asks you if you have ever consumed that substance. You are on the hook, you can either admit to your crime (and go to jail for consuming the substance) or you can deny your crime (and risk going to jail for making a false statement to the police as well as consuming the substance if they prove your guilt) or you can remain silent (and go to jail for refusing to testify against yourself, and for consuming the substance if they prove your guilt).
This basically puts the government in an un-resistable power position. All they have to do is make enough unreasonable laws of the kind I've described and they can pick anyone out of the general public and have them imprisoned for simply trying to fight the charges. Lying to the police is risky business, and only hardened criminals can do it successfully because they'd learned to do it through multiple interactions with law enforcement (and because they are usually willing to take the risk). For the rest of us, silence is our best option, because we can then pay our attorney to speak for us. If you remove that option we will all be susceptible to government issued threats an coercion.
5. Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid? Go back up to Professor Duane's hypothetical in which a suspect protests his innocence, and Duane imagines that Officer Bruch -- Professor Duane's real-life co-presenter in this talk! -- takes five words out of context and testifies in court, "He confessed to me, 'I never liked the guy'."
The phrase "Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law." would not exists if this were not the case.
When the real Officer Bruch gave his 'rebuttal', he started out by started out by saying, "Everything he just said was true. And it was right, and it was correct." If I had been in the room at the time, I would have asked him, "Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'" Well, we already know that George Bruch didn't really agree with everything that Professor Duane said, since Bruch contradicted him on some points, such as Duane's claim that "talking to the police cannot possibly help you even if you're innocent". But I would have liked for Officer Bruch to say if he thinks the police are anywhere as stupid and corrupt as Professor Duane was implying that they are.
My favorite example is Verbal Judo , which is about how to lie (while conving yourself that you are not lying) in order to manipulate people. It was published by a former police officer, and is used in training courses for police departments around the country. Ostensibly the reason is for defusing domestic violence through words.
More to the point -- and I went into this in my first article about the Fifth Amendment -- if the police and the courts are even remotely that corrupt and incompetent, then that's a wide-ranging problem that applies to all types of evidence gathered in the case, not just statements from suspect. And if that's the case, then the Fifth Amendment is just a band-aid that only solves the stupid-cops-and-courts problem as it applies to suspect statements specifically. It doesn't solve the problem as it applies to circumstantial evidence, unreliable eyewitness testimony, false memories, evaluating the credibility of other witnesses, and other factors.
Absolutely
In other words, if you're arrested, suppose the cops really are so dumb and/or evil that they would quote your "I never liked the guy" out of context to try and get you convicted. So, taking Professor Duane's advice, you say nothing. Do you still trust those same police officers to handle the other aspects of your case fairly? To make sure any exculpatory evidence is brought to light? To interrogate other witnesses without leading them towards a pre-set conclusion?
No, that's why there's also a right to legal representation.
As I said in my first article, that doesn't mean that this is not a valid argument for the Fifth Amendment. But it means that if this is the primary argument in favor of the Fifth Amendment, then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
The system was broken before the constitution was created, and the Bill of Rights serves as a patch over the corruptions of the legacy system.
He effected a bored affect.
I was smoking weed in my car with a friend in a parking lot, it was during the night. A police car came around, I knew we were fucked, I was 18 at the time.
Two police officers approched the car we were in and controlled us. I felt very guilty and obviously was, I said that I was sorry, etc... Then I let them search the vehicule. They found weed in the vehicule and they seized it. They also found something else, something I did not even remember was there, under the seat, a brass knuckles. The officer who found this said "look what I found" and put it on top of the car, he asked for explainations.
I told him that I was young and stupid when I bought that, I just wanted to be cool. I told him I was not in any gang or criminal activities and that I'm clean, I do not have any criminal antecedents.
They understood, they did not want to ruin my life with a criminal dossier, because I was complying with them in a very respectful and honest way. They took the weed and the brass knuckles and left, telling us we should not smoke weed in a public place like that.
So, I think talking to the police sometimes can be beneficial, sometimes not... Depanding on their mood, I guess.
One thing is sure is that, if I did not talk to them that night, I would not have shown them feelings (guilt), so they either would not have care to arrest me and my friend or they would think I'm disrespecful and arrogant, even foolish, so they would have been happy to arrest me.
Yes. The right to remain silent is good for society. As far as talking to the police when you are pretty sure you will be convicted anyway... When exactly do you know that? Are you a lawyer? The evidence you think they have might not be admissible for some reason. The lab might screw up the forensics. The cop involved might be found to have planted evidence in some other case. They can and will lie to you about what evidence they have collected. So, yes, you may get a better deal by cooperating. But you should never do so unless you have a lawyer first.
http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377
Give basic information (name, address, where you are going), RESPECTFULLY, then shut up.
You want to avoid being ARRESTED at all costs.
Reason? Arrest records are public knowledge now, doesn't matter if you are convicted or not.
If you get arrested, you may never have an above-minimum-wage job again. Just for starters.
If a suspect is compelled to answer some questions, where do you draw the line for when they can legally keep their mouth shut?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, samzenpus? ... it's a simple yes/no question, why are you refusing give me the answer? Do you have something to hide?
Most libertarians I know would ignore this moron because he's obviously not worth the time to entertain past perhaps a single comment telling him he's a moron. There's nothing to discuss with someone who has an almost religious faith in his own self-importance.
Your main argument is how talking to the police benefits the society as a whole rather than the individual. Let's take a look at two recent high profile examples which contradict your point.
On the one hand we have Ross Ulbricht who was caught running Silk Road. The evidence that lead to his arrest is pretty solid as you can read in the criminal complaint. If he had cooperated with the investigation, he gets a reduced sentence. How is that fair to the society as a whole?
On the other hand we have Aaron Swartz. He clearly understood not talking to the police, but his girlfriend Quinn didn't, as a result subjected herself and Aaron to unnecessary harassment by the prosecutor. It costed their relationship, and eventually, Aaron caved under the pressure and took his own life. In Aaron's case, it wasn't clear what is the maximum extent he could be charged for what he did, but cooperating definitely made it worse. It's like the prosecution ripped him off by charging him 10x for his crime, and then generously offered a 10% discount as leniency.
If you believe what Aaron did was good for the society, you would have advised Aaron and Quinn not to talk to the investigators.
I once had a signature.
How am I supposed to not RTFA when it's posted right at the top of the page?
This makes it very difficult to follow standard procedure..
The problem is that 95% of the cops make the other 5% look bad....
Wouldn't the cross-exam go, "Officer, you testified 'He confessed to me that He never liked the guy.' Is that all he said?" At which point the attorney has the officer read the transcript of the interrogation and now the testimony makes it appear that the officer is willing to distort words and evidence for a conviction.
Once again the long-winded post telling us your views. Just to clarify: the fact that it is "everybody's legitimate business whether or not you committed the crime" does not mean that there is a reciprocal obligation to answer that question. "Legitimate business" does not transate into the "right to know" let alone the "right to force an answer on pain of penalties." It merely means it is in their INTERESTS to know. By the same token it is in everyone's interest for "Professor Pat Pending" to invent a cure for some disease. It does not follow that he has the obligation to invent it (if he can) or to reveal it (if he has). As to the second question: There is a key practical difference between a witness and a suspect. It is highly unlikely that the solution to a crime will in fact hinge on the answer a suspect is forced to give, as the guilty can always lie. But an innocent person could well be exculpated by a witness statement. Therefore in the second case there is a PRACTICAL benefit likely to be derived in real-world situations. In the former there is none.
My impression is that the majority of cops and their precincts just want convictions, evidence and truth be damned.
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
This advise is especially pertinent if you are black. I am white but live in the South. If you call 911 for a medical emergency NEVER say someone is acting erratic. Instead of EMTs you will get frightened police officers with guns drawn and at first sight of a black man walking toward them they will fire. After the Navy Yard shooting they are very nervous and trigger happy.
Bennett Haselton's conundrums keep getting dumber and dumber every time.
At what point are they stupid enough to be a criminal offence?
Seriously? His 'articles' are written like a 12 year old school project. His thoughts are incomplete and childish responses to someone else's ignorance.
In short, this is just an angst story about someone else's angst video on youtube. Both could use a good bit of growing up before anyone else is submitted to the torture of reading this crap.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The video is answering a different question from the one I asked.
The video was not made in an attempt to answer your question. That someone improperly used it in response to your question does not mean that the video's argument is flawed.
The argument about the danger of talking to cops is based on a sampling error. Professor Duane says that criminal defense attorneys "always, always say it was a bad idea for their client to talk to the police". But this sample obviously only includes people who talked to the police and ended up getting arrested, and charged, and needing a criminal defense attorney. The sample wouldn't include anyone that the police talked to and decided not to arrest
That someone talked to the police and got away without being arrested does not mean that talking to the police was a good idea. This is in the same vein as thinking that launching the Shuttle with a flawed O-ring system was a good idea because they had gotten away with it in previous launches. As with NASA, you will get away with talking to police whenever you talk to police... Until the day that you don't.
His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway
1) The police are under no obligation to follow through with their promise to seek leniency.
2) The judge/jury are under no obligation to agree to be lenient even if the cops ask them to.
3) Being lenient will still mean you get punished. If your lawyer can get you off without being punished, that would be the personally preferable outcome.
4) While the police are being lenient with you on the one crime they brought you in for, they can also be taking notes of the crimes you confess to, sometimes without even realizing it, that they didn't know about.
5) You have the right to an attorney. Use it. Having an attorney with you is not grounds to punish you more.
Even if that scenario is a valid reason not to talk to the police, it wouldn't be possible in a courtroom, where all of your answers are recorded, and it will be obvious if someone is trying to distort the meaning of something that you said earlier
All of your answers are not necessarily recorded in a side-of-road interrogation by the cops. And recordings that don't go the cops' way have been known to "be accidentally lost." If nothing else, your lawyer serves as a witness to what you else you said if something should... Happen to the tape.
Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid?
Some of them are, yes. Do we really need to show you the links? NOPD, LAPD, NYPD, and CPD are just some of the larger agencies that have had nationally televised lapses of judgment and ethics both in recent, and not-so-recent years. No one's arguing that every cop is corrupt, but the fact is that when you're talking to a cop whom you do not know, you have no way of knowing if that cop is corrupt or not. Why take the risk that you're talking to one of the bad ones?
Your entire post fails utterly to show that this video should not be taken seriously.
I disagree with the author's take on the "I never liked the guy" example.
I am not a police officer but if I was interviewing a suspect and they gave me that same paragraph "I never liked the guy" is exactly what I would take out of it too! It's not mis-representing the suspect's words, it's the one and only sure thing that can be taken from them. All that other "I am innocent" stuff may very well be true. But.. a guilty person would say the same thing! "I never liked the guy"... that's a pretty dumb thing to say in such a situation and I really doubt anyone would say it if it weren't true. So... yeah, it's the only important part of what the suspect said.
Don't get me wrong, I still believe that is a long way from a confesion and should not be taken as proof of guilt. It is a little hint that you might be on the right path so keep considering this guy as a suspect.
Ok, I just read the first article.
The author states many times that people tell him the right to not self-imcriminate is important because otherwise police could just beat a confesion out of people. His rebuttal is that is already ilegal for them to do anyway.
But.. he also mentions that he understands why ilegaly obtained evidence can't be used in court. That rule takes away the incentive which police might otherwise have to break and enter people's homes without a warrant. That is also ilegal for them to do and yet we still need a separate rule that evidence obtained that way can't be used.
I don't understand the disconnect. If we need such a rule to protect our belongings from over-zealous police don't we need the same to protect our persons?
The whole idea of trying to force someone to testify againsts oneself just makes no sense to me. The only reason one would ever admit to a crime would be if the penalty for not doing so is greater than the penalty for doing so. In that case, from the suspect's perspective the question isn't really 'Did you do the crime?' it is 'Do you think you are going to be convicted?'. If you are innocent but things are going bad for you suddenly you are in a position where it is best to give up and admit to a crime you didn't commit. Likewise, if you are guilty, it still makes no sense to admit to it if you think you can get away with it. If they can't convict you of the crime how are they going to convict you of lying about it?
"If you're guilty, on the other hand, you may want to walk free, but it's usually in your society's interest for you to be convicted."
Is it? Why?
Prisons are over-crowded, every person in there is an expense to society and in no position to do anything useful for society even if they want to. This is true for any kind of offense, not just ones which we might not all agree should be ilegal. Locking a person up can't bring a murder victim back to life. It doesn't help an asault victim heal faster. It doesn't heal emotional wounds. Maybe.. if they are caught soon enough some of a thief's loot might be recovered and eventually restored to the victims. I wonder how often that happens where the amount recovered is greater than the cost of feeding and housing the criminal over time? The only thing that actually is in society's interest is preventing a crime from being comitted in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really arguing for doing things any different based on this philosophy. None of us are psychic enough to know who is going to comit a crime and I certainly wouldn't want police and judges trying to do so and locking people up for it. Those who have comitted a crime are probably the most likely to commit another so statistically they are the best bet for who to lock up.
I just wanted to point out that any absolute statement that society benefits from incarcerating specific individuals isn't really correct, not without clarvoyance anyway.
Note... one might make the argument that locking people up for crimes is good because it is a deterent to others. The author's statement though was worded more in the sense of locking up an individual. Unless that individual is a celebrity (OJ Simpson perhaps?) I don't think not locking up any one person is going to make a dent in the deterent effect of the law. How would we chose which individual(s) not to lock up? We couldn't and wouldn't. Again, I'm not advocating changing anything, just commenting about the validity of the author's statement.
Does this matter? I don't know. I think it's important to understand and keep in mind that when someone gets locked up society doesn't really win, it just makes a necessary (maybe debatable for certain crimes) sacrifice.
0? I wish I could mod this back up. Agree or disagree it doesn't look off-topic or trolish to me in any way! I couldn't not comment on this article though.