Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

Posted by timothy on from the well-you-did-you-know dept.

binarstu (720435) writes "Research recently published [link is to abstract only; full text requires subscription] in Psychological Science quantifies how easy it is to convince innocent, "normal" adults that they committed a crime. The Association for Psychological Science (APS) has posted a nice summary of the research. From the APS summary: "Evidence from some wrongful-conviction cases suggests that suspects can be questioned in ways that lead them to falsely believe in and confess to committing crimes they didn't actually commit. New research provides lab-based evidence for this phenomenon, showing that innocent adult participants can be convinced, over the course of a few hours, that they had perpetrated crimes as serious as assault with a weapon in their teenage years."

66 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. The average human being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is a gullible idiot.

    1. Re:The average human being by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is a gullible idiot.

      Yes they are, and our justice system should take that into account. Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession. Way too many people have been tricked or pressured into confessing to something they didn't do. In the 1990 Central Park jogger case several falsely accused, and subsequently convicted, teenagers claim that they were told they could go home if they confessed.

    2. Re:The average human being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession.

      Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.

    3. Re:The average human being by blackbeak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession. Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.

      And informed of the jury nullification option.

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    4. Re:The average human being by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Well actually you can walk into a police office and tell them you just murdered somebody, but unless they can prove it you'll never go to court, never mind go to jail. Of course, you can act as a pretty good witness to your own prosecution (i.e. telling them where you buried the body) but again there has to be substantial evidence to prove that you yourself aren't lying (such as in the case of where the person is missing but there's no body.)

    5. Re:The average human being by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      What's really shocking is that fully half the population has below-average intelligence!

    6. Re:The average human being by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      To add to that: Even if they can prove it, a doctor has to agree with it, and a supervising physician can let them out at any time.

    7. Re:The average human being by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those kids really screwed the public over with their lies. We wasted over a million dollars and well over two man-years because they decided to lie and take credit for something they didn't do. I was shocked when I was in NYC in 2002 when they were released. There was no talk of charging for their crimes. They kept the police from pursuing the real rapist which allowed him to hurt other women. They are responsible.

      The kids weren't responsible for those lies. They told the truth at first. They were coerced, manipulated and told to lie by the cops, who used methods like the Reid Technique which have been proven to produce false confessions. The cops were responsible for those lies, for wasting over a million dollars and for not convicting the real rapist. And that's what the courts decided when they awarded the kids millions in damages.

      You might as well prosecute the defendants in the Stalin purge trials for lying.

    8. Re:The average human being by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      In order for that to have happened, they had to have some other evidence that corroborated with what the guy was saying, either that or he just happened to guess some of the details of the crime that only the killer would have known (which that's actually happened before on people who weren't admitting to anything; they were tricked into saying things about the crime scene that only the killer should have known.)

    9. Re:The average human being by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

      Normal distributions make sense for real numbers. How are you converting "intelligence" to a real number? If you are using IQ, then it's not normal (it can't be, since it's bounded below by zero and a normal extends to infinity both ways).

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    10. Re:The average human being by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wasn't familiar with the Reid Technique, but once I learned what it was, it struck me as an incredibly unfair and abusive interrogation technique. It's also the technique we see often on a lot of those police investigation television shows: There's a presumption of guilt, all of the questions are loaded. I never knew it had a name, I always called it, "The Asshole Interrogation Technique," because you have to be an asshole to use it.

      For those who are interested, the Wikipedia has a short article but The New Yorker has a much more interesting one.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    11. Re:The average human being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Jurors are *way* too stupid for that.

      Seriously, have you ever served on a jury? If so, I imagine they immediately picked you as jury foreman and basically let you do all the thinking for them.

      Except for the one holdout who decided the guy was guilty of all charges before hearing any of the evidence.

      The jurors on the jury I was on had trouble understanding the simply-explained concept that "all four of these points must be true in order for him to be guilty. If any one of these is false, then he is not guilty." The judge did a good job explaining this. But the jurors immediately said things like "well he is definitely guilty because he did these three things no question." They thought that the obviousness of the three things meant that the fourth didn't matter.

      Jurors think slopily. They will ask questions that are completely irrelevant to the law and use that to form an opinion as to whether or not what someone did was morally right, and then use that to incorrectly convict (or not convict).

      The current process of arriving at jury instructions involves both lawyers as well as the judge. Though it takes some power away from the jury, in my opinion it is absolutely necessary because jurors are stupid.

    12. Re:The average human being by anegg · · Score: 2

      I created a ridiculous straw man argument claiming altruistic behavior because I thought that the idea that the individuals who were coerced into confessing were responsible for the outcome was ridiculous. I thought that my statement dripped with enough sarcasm that it would be obvious. Since the individuals in question could not possibly have hoped to profit from their coerced confessions (even though they were ultimately awarded a large settlement), I'm not sure what other reason for their behavior other than altruism could be given, given the assumption in the posting to which I was replying that their confessions were an intentional outcome on their part for which they could be held responsible.

      I'm a little fuzzy on how the position I took makes me a "Republican troll." Could you explain that to me?

      If it isn't clear, I think that the practice of coercing confessions is bad. I think that the outcome of a coerced confession from not guilty people isn't limited to putting "not guilty" people behind bars, but extends to letting the "guilty" remain free to commit further crimes. If anyone coerces a confession, using psychological techniques that are known to result in false confessions, then they are responsible for the outcomes, not the ones from whom the confessions are coerced.

      I'm not sure what these beliefs have to do with being "Republican" or "Democratic". I would have expected a "Republican" slur to have been thrown at me for supporting coerced confessions in the name of law and order, or something like that, not from attacking what may be a common "law and order" practice. No one has every accused me of being too bright about political stereotypes, however.

      Cheers, Mr. Anonymous Coward. I hope you have a nice day.

  2. Wouldn't work on me by russotto · · Score: 2

    Can't fool me. I didn't do it. I've got a record of the charges being dismissed.

    1. Re:Wouldn't work on me by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Why yeah, she's back in the garden, the pot grows way better where she's lying. Erh... the basil, I mean.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Here's an interesting follow-up idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What would be interesting would be to see what a polygraph says about their false memories. Can it distinguish between an event that occurred and one that was from a false memory? If not, that would be the final nail in the coffin.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Here's an interesting follow-up idea by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What would be interesting would be to see what a polygraph says about their false memories. Can it distinguish between an event that occurred and one that was from a false memory? If not, that would be the final nail in the coffin.

      What coffin? Polygraphs are a hoax intended to scare stupid criminals into confessing. It does even work on real memories, why would it work on false ones?

    2. Re:Here's an interesting follow-up idea by Slashjones · · Score: 2

      I would fail the polygraph even if I was telling the complete truth. If you're a nervous person (and I can't imagine many people wouldn't be under those conditions), then you're screwed. Polygraphs are good for absolutely nothing; mere pseudoscience.

    3. Re:Here's an interesting follow-up idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      During a polygraph examination, the polygraph is entirely a prop. At some point, the examiner will say something like "the machine says that's not true, are you really being completely truthful and forthcoming here?" The way you "fail" a polygraph examination is if you TELL the examiner that you were lying, and the polygraph is a prop to help him get you to do that. You could replace the polygraph with a crystal ball or a deck of tarot cards and the whole thing would work just the same way.

    4. Re:Here's an interesting follow-up idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did fail a polygraph even though I was telling the complete truth. It was a full scope polygraph for a Federal agency. The polygraph examiner - a LEO - then interrogated me for a bit, accusing me of various crimes that he thought I was likely to have committed. While I was disappointed in the outcome, I took advantage of the exchange to observe real-life interrogation techniques. I noted the following:

      1. Building up my ego. He told me that, with my experience, he thought I'd be an excellent candidate for the job. I think this was supposed to make me like him, to re-establish the rapport he believed was broken when he told me I failed the test.

      2. Claiming he wanted to help me. I just had to give him something he could give to the adjudicators, so they could authorize a retest. From my reading, I knew that post-test admissions are automatically disqualifying. This is the oldest trick in the book - the subject is put in a position of distress, and the interrogator offers to help in exchange for information. Naturally, anything that is divulged will be used against the subject later.

      3. Claiming anything I told him would be just between me and the agency. They weren't going to share anything with my employer, another Federal entity. This was a lie, of course. Pre-employment polygraph results are provided to other Federal agencies for periodic reinvestigations.

      4. Making unrealistic claims about the polygraph itself. The examiner told me that, in every case he has seen, evidence of deception on the polygraph was backed up by facts. From official US government sources, I knew only about half of such cases were substantiated by confession or investigation.

      Having been through the wringer, or at least a light version of it, I can see how a person disposed toward trusting authority figures could be manipulated into making a false confession. The interrogator presents himself as an ally and offers to help while minimizing negative consequences of cooperation. Since the interrogator's definition of cooperation is "give me something I can use against you," the compliant person sees substantial benefit and little harm in making a confession, even a false one.

      The polygraph, of course, is mainly a prop to elicit confessions. A DNI said as much to Congress a few years ago. And consider this: In the CIA's detention program, probably the most important interrogation program in modern American history, they didn't even bother polygraphing their detainees when they thought they might be lying.

    5. Re:Here's an interesting follow-up idea by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tyrell was a moron. He got so distracted by that chess game that he let a replicant get into his house and crush his eyeballs! It was 2019! Why didn't he have a security camera in his elevator?

  4. Reid Technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. It's called the Reid technique and the police in the US have been deliberately exploiting it for years to obtain false convictions.

    They know they are exploiting a psychological weakness. They do not care that innocent people are sent to prison. They simply want convictions.

    1. Re:Reid Technique by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's called the Reid technique and the police in the US have been deliberately exploiting it for years to obtain false convictions.

      I've had that used on me. As soon as I realized what they were doing I called them on it (didn't know what it was called at the time) and they ended the interview right there. In Step 1 they implied they had certain evidence of my guilt and knew I was guilty; they screwed up Step 3 because I said I didn't do it, and somewhere in Step 6 or 7 realized they had no such evidence (because it didn't fit their alternatives) and called them on it.

  5. Understand your rights!! by bradgoodman · · Score: 2
    I'm not an extreme (left/right) crackpot - but I've read a bunch of their rethoric with respect to "knowing your rights" when it comes to dealing with police - and there is a LOT of merit to it!

    This article speaks to the core of it.

    These types of "false confessions" always follow the same pattern. Police with little or no circumstantial evidence pulling innocent people into long interrogations. They are happy to talk - because they are innocent, and letting all the facts come out can only help, right?

    People need Serious education on how to handle situations like this. What to do and - NOT to do. What their rights are, and what will work best in their interests. Most of the time, the are involved in conversations that they have no obligation to have - and can leave at any time.

    1. Re:Understand your rights!! by OldSport · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, don't talk to the police without a lawyer present. Period. I mean, I'm not going to stonewall a cop that pulls me over for a broken taillight, but if the line of questioning goes any further than what's immediately relevant to said taillight, that's when I shut up. And you can guarantee that I will be videotaping the entire encounter! Cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth about anything; it's up to you to know what your rights are in a given situation and assert them.

    2. Re:Understand your rights!! by rwyoder · · Score: 2

      Basically, don't talk to the police without a lawyer present. Period. I mean, I'm not going to stonewall a cop that pulls me over for a broken taillight, but if the line of questioning goes any further than what's immediately relevant to said taillight, that's when I shut up. And you can guarantee that I will be videotaping the entire encounter! Cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth about anything; it's up to you to know what your rights are in a given situation and assert them.

      Absolutely true, and here is an excellent 50 minute video with a law professor explaining why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Understand your rights!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It starts LONG before there are any Miranda rights - or an arrest. Often times because there is no cause for an arrest until the "suspect" tells the cop something to warrant an arrest, or consents to an otherwise unwarranted search, yielding incriminating evidence.

      You can see this stuff happening all the times on shows like "Cops" - and gets to the heart of things like the Ferguson protests. Things like "Stop and frisk", "Driving while Black" and DUI checkpoints. (If you don't understand everything about DUI checkpoints - you really need to - especially if you're sober!!!

      Cops can't see a car parked "someplace where this a lot of crime" and start asking the occupants questions. Or having them come out and searching the car - or going through the person's pockets. Sometime's it just completely illegal. Sometimes the police actually trick the people into consenting to a search. Sometimes they just keep talking and asking questions until they find something they don't like.

      The point is - if they have no probable cause to stop/question/search/detain you - just tell them you don't answer police questions, you do not consent to police searches, and that are that you would like to go. Let's say that they ignore you. Let's say that pulled you over because they thought that "your car looked suspicious" - or even because you were speeding. They have the right to see your license, and to detain you as long as required to give you a ticket. "Speeding" is not probable cause of a crime being committed to warrant a search (this is well-settled law). If they search you without consent and (let's say) find weed - you get the evidence thrown out because it was an illegal search. If you consented - it's all legal.

      To the point of the OP - because the cops don't have any evidence - nor have any way of getting evidence. The only hope they have is for you to give them evidence by means of an admission - or even saying something perfectly harmless, but that could give them a tiny puzzle piece they need. For example "I just came from Home Depot". Maybe they just pulled you over because someone in a car of your size and color just robbed - a Home Depot. Driving a pink Mazda isn't a crime (yet) - but you just gave them enough "evidence" for an arrest.

      When you hear of people giving false confessions - they're always after these 13-hour marathon police interrogations. 99% of the time, the police have no cause to subject you to such an interrogation. If they "invite" you down to the police department - unless you're under arrest - you're free to politely decline. If you find yourself in such a situation - don't answer their questions, and let it be heard (you are probably being records) that you want to leave. They can arrest you or release you. 99% of the time, these "marathon interrogations" only happen with the implied consent of the person being interrogated.

      Again:

        Don't answer questions
        Don't consent to searches
        Always insist you would like to leave
        Record if/when possible

      LOTS of online resources on the correct ways to approach all this.

  6. What people are missing here... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

    ... is that the cops don't care who really did it. Assholes as usual.

    1. Re:What people are missing here... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      A lot of it is due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. The cops know you did it, because they arrested you. They wouldn't have arrested you if they were not sure you were guilty. They know they never make mistakes. And then they stop investigating the crime once they have someone to pin it on.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  7. Re:With our out-of-control gov't, NONE are innocen by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the crazy volume of laws imposed by our governments, it's almost certain everyone commits multiple crimes daily.

    Which is why one should exercise one's right to remain silent. The police do not decide to prosecute or not, and do not get to 'make deals' or not. That's firmly in the prosecutor's realm, with required agreement from a judge in the case of plea deals. Police offers to, "go easy on you," if you cooperate now, or to, "put in a good word to X," are also meaningless, as once the evidence is turned over to the prosecutor, the police have only as much influence as the prosecutor is willing to accept.

    Don't do the police's job for them, you're not required to tell them anything or to admit guilt. There's always another opportunity to "make a deal", with your lawyer and the prosecutor negotiating that deal, not you and the plainclothes detective.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  8. The (in)justice system by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And along with that, "plea bargains" should be absolutely forbidden. What they do is provide the prosecution tools to coerce and frighten victims of the system into admitting guilt for things they didn't do, at the same time as they take the determination of the individual's guilt out of the hands of a jury.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:The (in)justice system by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never quite got why plea bargains are permissible in the first place. Either someone is guilty or he is not. It's one of the few things that are quite black and white, either someone committed a crime or he did not. Where does a plea bargain come in? Let's haggle over whether I did it partly or whether you want to punish me a little bit?

      What's that, a court of law or the Turkish bazaar?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:The (in)justice system by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      One could argue that there's a no need to have a court system. If a cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, you're guilty. No need to establish innocence or haggle over penalties. The cop blows your brains out on the side of road, saving the public some money in court costs and your dead body will remind potential offenders that there are legal consequences for violating laws.

    3. Re:The (in)justice system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's one of the few things that are quite black and white, either someone committed a crime or he did not.

      A plea bargain is not someone saying they partially committed a crime, it is them admitting full guilt to a crime. The law frequently gives a range of punishments, e.g. upper and lower limits for fines or jail time, and the judge can pick something lower if the defendant saves everyone a bunch of time by just admitting it. Some laws also allow judges to remit or change the charges to a lesser crime depending on the circumstances too, especially if part of the plea bargain involves helping them catch other people. It has nothing to do with partly committing a crime, but what amount of punishments and exactly what charges are used. That said, it can pressure innocent people in tough situations to just accept guilt.

    4. Re:The (in)justice system by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plea Bargains save everyone time and money; as long a prosecutorial discretion exists, plea bargains will be possible. The alternative is the prosecutors office being required to pursue every single case. 5-17 year old took a nude picture of herself? Child Porn charges. kill in clear self defense? Murder charges. transpose two digits on your tax return? Tax Fraud charges.

      There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!

    5. Re:The (in)justice system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!

      I heard a story about a pool of jurors that was told to go to the wrong room. The judge just ordered them all to be arrested for not showing up, and it took another judge to stop that process.

      At which point, all of the jurors had to be dismissed, because now they were pissed at the judge and the whole system.

    6. Re:The (in)justice system by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ask yourself which makes more money for a lawyer - handling several plea bargains a day, or one long case that he is likely to lose for a client that will have no income?

      You realize that many, if not most, of these plea bargains are between public defenders and the DA's office. You realize that neither group is raking in huge cash based on case volume. It isn't about making money, it is about a case load that they could not possibly handle if they had to take every one to court. Besides, the court system couldn't deal with the volume either.

    7. Re:The (in)justice system by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's one of the few things that are quite black and white, either someone committed a crime or he did not.

      A plea bargain is not someone saying they partially committed a crime, it is them admitting full guilt to a crime.

      In reality, a plea bargain is a strategic decision by a defendant or his lawyer that he would be better off taking a shorter sentence in a plea bargain than go to court, and get a much longer sentence if he loses.

      I've seen typical plea bargain of 6 months, which is time served, versus 15 years if he loses in court.

      Some judges insist on a legal fiction that the defendant is voluntarily admitting to the crime, but everybody knows that it's not voluntary and people are often forced to falsely admit to crimes to avoid the risk of a much worse sentence by a vindictive prosecutor.

      Lawyers have cases on file where people pled guilty to avoid a much longer sentence, and were exonerated afterwards.

      The courts are punishing people for exercising their constitutional right to a trial. The most outrageous thing is that the Supreme Court approved it.

    8. Re:The (in)justice system by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "plea bargains" should be absolutely forbidden.

      You're assuming infinite resources. As it is, would you prefer a system where (1) your taxes now have to cover a 20-30-fold increase in state and federal courts (and prosecutors) needed to take all cases to trial; (2) on the other side of the bar, an even higher percentage of the population becomes criminal defense lawyers; and (3) you yourself end up on jury duty multiple times a year?

      Or, would you rather a world where the prosecutors just pursue the most egregious criminals given the limited resources they have, and put everyone else right back out on the streets with no deterrent whatsoever?

      I'm not suggesting the current plea-bargain system is optimal or that incremental changes aren't possible. What I am suggesting that you can't just throw out such a fundamental piece without stepping back and redesigning the entire system.

    9. Re:The (in)justice system by Mr_Blank · · Score: 2

      It isn't about making money, it is about a case load that they could not possibly handle if they had to take every one to court. ... Besides, the court system couldn't deal with the volume either.

      If there are more broken laws than there is money or capacity to adjudicate the cases of the alleged perpetrators... then maybe there are too many laws?

      Why should justice hinge on the financial means of the alleged perpetrators or on court capacity? That scenario sounds ripe for the proliferation of injustice.

    10. Re:The (in)justice system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plea Bargains save everyone time and money; as long a prosecutorial discretion exists, plea bargains will be possible. The alternative is the prosecutors office being required to pursue every single case. 5-17 year old took a nude picture of herself? Child Porn charges. kill in clear self defense? Murder charges. transpose two digits on your tax return? Tax Fraud charges.

      There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!

      If the prosecutors office had to pursue every single case, then our laws would be changed so that things that shouldn't be illegal aren't. Instead we have so many laws that we can't possibly obey them all and have to hope that the presecutors and police will let slide the things we do. For example, my mother takes many different medicines for a chronic illness and when I was last visiting her I picked up her medicine as we were heading out for dinner. At some point while we were out a comment was made that it was time for her to take her medicine and maybe we should head home. I produced the medicine and was told that actually I was violating the law because the particular medicine was controlled and only she (who is no longer mentally "all there") was allowed to carry it around. Wow, so I could go to prison for years for this but of course we count on prosecutorial discretion. But my life shouldn't have to depend on whether or not the prosecutor is an asshole. We should have reasonable rule of law, not rule of men.

    11. Re:The (in)justice system by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The alternative is the prosecutors office being required to pursue every single case. 5-17 year old took a nude picture of herself? Child Porn charges. kill in clear self defense? Murder charges. transpose two digits on your tax return? Tax Fraud charges. There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty! There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!

      GOOD! Then we might finally get some of these arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, bullshit laws off the books!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:The (in)justice system by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, would you rather a world where the prosecutors just pursue the most egregious criminals given the limited resources they have, and put everyone else right back out on the streets with no deterrent whatsoever?

      YES, GODDAMNIT!

      That's EXACTLY what we want and what you should want -- unless you're a fucking totalitarian sociopathic boot-licker -- because we're living in a goddamn police state that contains 25% of the WORLD's prison population even though we only have 5% of the world's population overall. Damn right we need to only pursue the "egregious criminals," because in every civilized country on the planet, what you call the "egregious criminals" are the only criminals!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:The (in)justice system by ultranova · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I never quite got why plea bargains are permissible in the first place.

      They're a form of punishment. Being forced to testify against yourself humiliates the accused and empowers the prosecutor. It dehumanizes the accused, by showing that no, he doesn't have any of those Constitutional rights. The prosecutor is, in effect, establishing his superiority to reality itself: pretend that what happened is what he said happened, or be severely punished.

      Plea bargains are basically a sadist's wet dream. And US legal system is built on the idea that justice is institutionalized sadism. Every single aspect of it is geared towards maximum harm to those caught in it, from criminal records (meant to extend punishment to infinity) to keeping people in death row for decades to uncertain methods of execution (as opposed to a simply breathing nitrogen) to private prisons (who have very incentive to make recidivism rate as high as possible). Hence the popular notion that everyone accused must be guilty, so you can enjoy watching the system grind them to bits with good conscience.

      Plea bargains are a symptom, but the disease itself is simply bloodlust.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:The (in)justice system by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 5, Interesting

      -or they would have to be more selective about what they prosecuted.

      5-17 year old took a nude picture of herself? Well I'd *like* to prosecute that, but I'm too busy prosecuting this other case.

      Kill in clear self defense? Again, I'd *like* to prosecute that, but I'm too busy prosecuting this other case.

      Can you imagine how horrible that would be?

    15. Re:The (in)justice system by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Lawyers have cases on file where people pled guilty to avoid a much longer sentence, and were exonerated afterwards.

      To give a sort of example for this: Let's say that I'm completely innocent, but I'm accused of some horrible crime. I'm looking at 40 years in prison. The prosecution offers me a deal of 'only' 1 year in prison even as I figure that while I'm likely to prove my innocence in court, there's a 5% chance I'll be found guilty anyways. Oh, and it'll cost approximately a year's income simply to fight it.

      I'm actually statistically avoiding more prison time taking the deal. Personally, I'd fight all the way(felony=no guns, raising the effective penalty for me), but for the average person?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:The (in)justice system by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even more extreme (but not unknown), you face 40 years but if you plead guilty tomorrow, you'll be home with time served by the end of the week.

      Meanwhile, you can't afford a real lawyer and your public defender can't even remember your name or what you were charged with. Naturally, that means bail is right out, so even if you are found not guilty, you'll spend a fair bit more time in the slammer if you plead not-guilty.

      So there it is, plead guilty and go home where you might be able to put your life back together or spend another 6 months to 40 years imprisoned and either way, you will lose what little you have.

    17. Re:The (in)justice system by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Contrary to what lawyers believe the main function of the legal system is not to ensure job security and 7 digit incomes for them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:The (in)justice system by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Particularly in drug crimes, prosecutors routinely use extreme penalties to win plea bargains. There is also a penalty for going to trial: people pleading guilty get much lower sentances on average than those found guilty at trial.

    19. Re:The (in)justice system by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or you've spent 5 years in an illegal prison without valid charge, and subject to torture.
      Finally, prosecution says you can go home tomorrow if you plead guilty to this new retrospective crime we just made up.

      And there you have the confession and first conviction of a Gitmo detainee! (Five years later, the US Court of Appeals ruled the conviction invalid.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    20. Re:The (in)justice system by Headw1nd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the thing is plea bargaining is not a fundamental piece, it has only gained prominence in the last 100 years, and was popularized to handle the enormous amount of "crime" that prohibition created. We now recognize that the underlying cause of much of this crime - Prohibition - was bad law, so why are we clinging to plea bargaining? Probably because we are still clinging to prohibition, just in a different fashion.

    21. Re:The (in)justice system by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      Every year, the ability for law enforcement to detect crimes and enforce laws gets better, but the laws themselves don't change.
      Perfect enforcement of imperfect laws is a recipe for disaster.

  9. The (in)justice system is primarily about power. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    cops don't care who really did it

    Neither do the prosecutors -- or the judges. For them, it's all about notches on the handle of their figurative pistol.

    Our justice system attracts some of the worst human beings among us. The very last thing you can expect from it, and from them, is "justice."

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. Always ask for a Lawyer by Usefull+Idiot · · Score: 2

    If you are being officially questioned, there are only two things you need to say -
    1. Am I under arrest?
    2. I wish to speak with my lawyer.

    Very simply because they think you were either involved with or the prime suspect in a crime, and -
    1. The police officer is trying to solve a case/send something to the DA, and that is their first priority, the lawyers/court are there to determine what happened.
    2. Even if they don't get a confession for a serious crime, they may charge you with whatever they can, to provide time to find more evidence.
    3. They have no obligation to tell you the truth or provide any information they have.

    The only way to get any view of what is going on is to involve a lawyer.

    1. Re:Always ask for a Lawyer by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      My wife used to be a public defender in Pittsburgh. She got shitcanned for winning too many cases.

  11. The famous Reykjavik confessions by caseih · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not just a matter of people being idiots or people talking to police without a lawyer. There's a much deeper psychological thing going on here, and that's I think the point of the article. A famous case years ago in Iceland really illustrated this phenomenon. Six people admitted to their role in a murder in Iceland and this was thought to be an open and shut case. Several of the accused even showed police where they disposed of the body, and provided details on how they committed the murder. The problem was, none of them actually had anything to do with the murder, or any murder at all, and all the details they were remembering were not real at all. It's a very long but fascinating read. Yes they were manipulated and badgered (by well-meaning prosecutors who didn't see themselves as manipulative), but the crazy thing is that as a result they convinced themselves that they really did participate in this murder. Was this just a case of over-zealous police and prosecutors? Or was there something more to it?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/specia...

  12. Re:I doubt they're "convinced" of anything... by nbauman · · Score: 2

    That's not what the research says. http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...

    What happens is the cops wear the suspect down. They go on for hours, insisting that the suspect is wrong, that they have conclusive evidence, and that if they confess it will go better for them (or even that if they confess, they can go home). They try to get the suspect actually believing that he might have done it, if these authority figures say so with such confidence.

    The New Yorker story had an example of this:

    I saw this effect in a video of an interrogation that an Iowa defense attorney sent me. His client, a young man who was eighteen at the time of the interview, had been wrongly accused of molesting a three-year-old girl at the day-care center where he worked. The detective never raised his voice or appeared anything other than sympathetic. But, in under two hours, he had the young man saying that he had blanked out and fondled the little girl. As if in a trance, the young man said, “I know it happened but I don’t remember any of it. . . . I guess it must have happened.” After a break in the interrogation, during which the young man was allowed to see his sister, he retracted his confession and maintained his innocence. The district attorney dropped the charges.

  13. Re:With our out-of-control gov't, NONE are innocen by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To quote my lawyer, "You can still confess when you're in court". It doesn't give you jack shit to do it any earlier. Yes, a confession can shave off some time from your jail time, but never ever confess anything without first consulting your lawyer, and it makes no difference whether you do it at the police or in court. Actually in court is usually even the better option since you give the judge that good, fuzzy feeling that it was him who made you confess and that it was him who made you do the "right thing". Judges are people too, and like all they can be quite vain.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:As my attorney says by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    However, shitting your own pants is sure to make the interview more interesting.

  15. The paper seems to be semi-free by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    From home I can click through to the full text as HTML but if I try to click through to the PDF it wants me to pay.

    This might be an error (or perhaps their server has a guilty conscience from a crime it did not commit?) but for now if you want to see the full text, there it is.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  16. Entrapment? by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that still legal in the USofA?

    I also overheard a conversation where some cops-in-training where proud on how they learned how to get confessions out of people for things they did not do. Not get the truth out of them. To get confessions for things THEY DID NOT DO.

    Country was Belgium.

    When I did a reply on Usenet in an anti-abuse newsgroup of a link to childporn. I informed the police. I also informed the media when it wasn't gone after 2 days.
    I was asked to come in via the company where I worked and they tried to get me for:
    1) Spreading of childporn, because of the reply that still had the URL. (And that is why you must snip on quote correctly on Usenet.) When I told them I send them an email, they explained that their mailserver was broken.
    2) The tried to get me for falsification of my identity, because the email-provider did not have my correct address. Like anybody would give out that on some random website.
    3) They tried to get me for obstruction of the law, because I spoke to the press. If they would have just send me an autoreply, I would have done nothing. Obviously I had no idea that any investigation was going on. Also: they already KNEW who was the guilty person and were keeping it live just to get higher numbers. As the URL was already out, it ment that they were basically spreading childporn.
    4) They called my company from where I had done the posting and told them they needed my information because of a child case abuse.
    Luckily the COO was not an idiot and understood after 30 seconds when I told him what I had done and even asked me if he should block the info about who I was and wait for a court order. He could easily do that under Belgian law on the right to privacy. The CEO even offerd to pay for any lawyer if anything would come of it. It never did.
    Imagine that this would have been another company. I could have lost my job over someting I was trying to get solved. But then: They do not care. They were clueless and only interested in the numbers, not in stopping spreading those sick, sick, sick images that I can not unsee.
    When I left the police station after making clear that I was not afraid and that I did nothing do and they were basically idiots (also leaving me alone with evdence of other cases on the table) they asked me if I would keep the same login in the future. Only later did I realize that I did not know the difference between a login and an email address.

    From then on I NEVER saw anything illegal on the Internet anymore. EVER.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Entrapment? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Entrapment has never been legal in the USA.

      This does not stop them from doing it every single day.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  17. Re:Sorry, but no by JonathanR · · Score: 2

    Those with the most bravado turn out to be the most suggestible.

  18. Never talk to the police by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Never ever talk to the police if you could potentially be charged with a crime.

    Not a word.

    First, they tell you up front with the Miranda warning. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." They very clearly do NOT say that anything you say can be used in your defense. And in fact, it cannot. For example, if you tell police something incriminating then that is evidence against you. However, if you say something exhortating then it is "hearsay" and inadmissible. That is what you say can ONLY be used AGAINST you and not for you. So there is literally no incentive to say anything given that nothing you say can help you. It can literally only hurt you.

    Second, the "memory" of what you said to police is evidence in a court case. Which means if you had a long conversation with the police in which you said nothing incriminating but they "remember" you saying something incriminating then basically it is your word about what you said versus theirs. Have fun with that. Where as if you said nothing and never said anything then it is a great deal harder for anyone to misremember something you said. Make sure all your statements go through your lawyer and are on record... and say as little as possible.

    Third, in any court case against you, you start out with the presumption of innocence. The less the police have to work with the harder it will be for them to build a case against you whether you did it or not. Give them NOTHING. Simply pleading the 5th and refusing to talk is a powerful defense against any police investigation and there really isn't anything they can do about it.

    Look at what the rich and powerful do whenever they are taken to court or sit before congress giving testomony. They basically say as little as possible if they say anything at all. Before a judge they'll just plead the 5th, challenge the prosecution to make a case, and then try to tear that apart while giving literally nothing up as to what they were doing unless they can shatter a bit of the prosecution's case. And before congress they'll just say "I don't recall" over and over and over again. Because that is basically the version of "I plead the 5th" that works in a congressional investigation.

    Do not. Talk. To. The. Police.

    I say this as a law abiding citizen that believe in law and order. But the court system is set up in such a way that the police are inherently adversarial rather then impartial. And statements to them are basically just statements to the prosecution. You are not talking to an impartial judge that will weigh both sides of anything you say. You are talking to an agent that is trained to find anything he can bust you with and do it the instant he's got something.

    So do NOT talk to the police.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  19. US Police by prefec2 · · Score: 2

    According to most comments here, the (I assume) US police force is not trying to solve crimes by collecting evidence, but instead they are only trying to get a maximum of convictions. If so, I wonder why there are no protests about it. The police force is part of the executive of a state. They are necessary to ensure the monopoly of power in the state and represent one pillar of a modern free democracy. They must adhere the law (even if it sucks), but they must not try to impress statistically. That would be a real considerable bias. Even in a police state you try to direct the suppression towards criminals and people who oppose the government, but the accusations here point to random (may be race biased) behavior. That would imply a broken system. So can someone explain why there are no demonstrations? Every day? Until the government fixes the situation? In the US, I heard, can elect the sheriff of their city. In that case it would be possible to elect someone who wants to fix it.

  20. Not true really. by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems like it is - on paper.
    In reality that bell curve is actually skewed to the right - due to the limiting effects of low intelligence and test error.

    The peak in the middle of the curve is actually a flat line, so the top of the curve is not a single person with a perfect IQ100, but millions of people scoring AROUND IQ100.
    Also, due to the built-in unreliability of the test itself, a certain percentage will certainly score less than their actual intelligence.
    Due to stress, various environmental and personal issues, even things like time from last meal or how many hours of sleep one had prior to the test.
    For all those things there is no normalizing effect which would increase the score - if there were it would be outselling any drug out there.

    So, the curve actually leans to the right at the top, but the measured result comes out as symmetrical due to normalization which distorts the representation of the reality, due to the assumption that the only measurement error is in (in)accurately counting the number of correct answers (which is self-normalizing).

    Meanwhile, on the far ends of the curve (both left and right) you got what seems like exactly the same number of geniuses (right) and severely retarded (left).
    Except that those under a certain level of IQ can't take part in a society at all and must be housed in special institutions - or they die.

    So instead of a perfect 50-50 bell curve, it is closer to 40something - average - 50something division.
    Where 50+X % are of above average IQ, average IQ is a certain percentage instead of a peak in the middle, some small percentage of people are either babies, senile, comatose or severely retarded people incapable of taking care of themselves and the remaining 40+Y percent are in the below average but intellectually functional bracket.

    There is no limit on the above average side of the curve at which said IQ would negatively affect a persons ability to function.
    There is such a limit on the below average side, and it is far above 0.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens