So why is deception wrong in an interrogation? I can see some of the other tactics as problematic, but not that directly.
That is definitely not required for a false confession. I don't have stats handy, but for another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33146157) I was reading up on the Dutch Wikipedia article on false confessions. Reasons for false confessions given there (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valse_bekentenis) are:
- Feeling guilty for what happened, even if it's not your fault
- To protect the actual perpetrator
- To receive benefits such as contact with one's family, stopping the interrogation, sentence reduction, or to prevent a loved one from also being (further) prosecuted
- Due to a pathological need for attention or sensationalism
- Thinking you are guilty due to memory problems or other psychological issues such as delusions
In one case I heard in de podcast Napleiten, someone gave a false confession because the interviewers said they had video evidence, saying something along the lines of "if you have it on video then I guess I must have done it". She was a teenager, been interviewed for hours on end, and had barely slept the night before in the cell (after she came to the police the day before, expecting to clear up this apparent mix-up where she appeared on some wanted list). The public prosecutor brought a signed confession before the court.
The Wikipedia article lists as measures that can lead to further pressure for a false confession: long interrogations, interrogations at unexpected moments, preventing rest or sleep, providing gruesome footage of the event, raising one's voice, saying they can prove it anyway so it is useless to deny it, and obviously things like actual torture (which I'd say sleep deprivation should also count as) or threats thereof. Some of these things might happen inadvertently, such as if someone is already dead on their feet due to no fault of the police's, or if they don't know/realize that discussing gruesome footage is a risk factor for a false confession.
The example you gave clearly had numerous other issues in it.
I guess I'm still not seeing how deception would be a problem if we fixed the other issues - including not corroborating the confession (there are methods for this, even with limited evidence).
"We have a video of you at the scene of the crime with indisputable evidence. It doesn't matter what you say, there are 10 policemen waiting to testify against you. It's your word against theirs. If you don't take this deal you will go away for life."
You don't have money for a lawyer and you have no idea if there are actually 10 policemen waiting to testify against you. Do you take the chance? How is that not problematic?
Because that's an unrealistic scenario (based on my other points). You have access to a lawyer even if you don't have money. The confession can (and should) be verified. There are ways to do this with safeguards.
"Huh? I've never been so saddened by a comment actually."
It sounds like you already have your mind made up. Otherwise I strongly suggest looking into proper interrogation techniques (which avoid abuse but can leverage deception, and uses techniques to verify the confession is true/real).
The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point of view who have never lived out what happens in the real world. I know from close friends that what you are describing just doesn't always happen.
"The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point of view who have never lived out what happens in the real world."
You don't know me or my experiences. It's sad to see someone on HN blindly attack someone. Because from my perspective, you seem to be the one who is uninformed. Please do some research on the methods of taking and verifying confessions.
Not attacking, pointing out other perspectives. You saying it is an unrealistic scenario is what I was arguing against in that not only is it realistic, but I have seen it happen.
You've made my point once again with your comment: "Please do some research on the methods of taking and verifying confessions."
Yes, sure, ideally we should all be informed about the law, but if I happen to not be, and I happen to get arrested, there is no way that I can know that my interrogator is lying and that there are ways around that. Yes, I know lawyers are provided, that doesn't mean that people have my best interest in mind, etc. Like I said, speaking from personal experience of SEEING this happen to people.
My point is that you are speaking from a position of "being informed" when not everyone is informed, can get informed, wants to get informed, etc. This is why we have protections, this is why we hire lawyers, because we can't be "informed" about everything. That is besides the fact of my moral disagreement that a professional working for the government should be able to lie to a child so that they confess to a crime and potentially get life in prison (as seen here).
I'll leave it there though. Not trying to attack so if it came across that way, sorry.
Deception leads to false convictions.
How?
To me, it's like wearing a safety belt. I mean, if all your driver assistance systems work and all the other drivers pay attention and drive perfectly, you shouldn't need it, right?
There also needs to be some utility left to the interview. Sure we don't want to have long, aggressive, or abusive interviews. But how useful would suspect interviews be if you just asked questions based on real information? Sometimes you might get some info, but the smart ones won't be that easy. Sometimes it would be good to use some deception just to gauge what they know, even if you don't get a confession. It's a useful tool that doesn't present any downside with the proper safety measures in place.
a) understand that fully at the time of interrogation, especially if one is a minor or a foreigner
b) trust that a court-appointed lawyer will actually work for your best interests
c) actually get a court-appointed lawyer who does work for your best interests.
So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer present, absent other police misconduct, is clearly a flawed assumption.
The Miranda reading should mean they understand the right to a lawyer.
You have to trust that any lawyer will work for your best interest since they tend to be paid regardless of outcome.
If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial. Same for private attorneys.
"So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer present, absent other police misconduct, is clearly a flawed assumption."
Where is that assumption? They necessarily have access to one. We can what-if all day. The fact is, you have the right to an effective attorney. This is even popularized by TV, and thus common knowledge.
And what's popularized by TV, through dozens of police procedurals, most of which could be fairly accurately termed "copaganda," is the idea that asking for a lawyer is what guilty people do.
And, again: even if you actually have an attorney present with you, it is not guaranteed that they will be effective, and your handwaving that "If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial" does not negate the fact that a) people can, and do, take bad advice from attorneys that results in devastating plea bargains, b) actually proving they didn't work in your best interest is nontrivial, and c) even if you can do that, a retrial also requires an attorney, which you probably still can't afford to hire, so you're just getting another public defender, and also, in the vast majority of cases, takes place while you are still in prison...and will likely take months to years.
In general, your assumptions are very much that for someone wrongfully accused, the justice system will be kind and work in the most ideal way possible. I would not seek to deny that that can happen (particularly for affluent white men); my point is simply that it is only one end of the spectrum of possibilities, and far from the most likely for people who are further down the socioeconomic ladder.
Edit to add: Re: Miranda rights, the Supreme Court recently gutted that, making it far, far more difficult to ensure that any given accused has been read and understands their rights.
No what?
"it is not guaranteed that they will be effective,"
Umm, yeah you do. If you have ineffective counsel you can get a new one or even a new trial. That is a legal right.
"a) people can, and do, take bad advice from attorneys that results in devastating plea bargains, b) actually proving they didn't work in your best interest is nontrivial, and c) even if you can do that, a retrial also requires an attorney, which you probably still can't afford to hire, so you're just getting another public defender, and also, in the vast majority of cases, takes place while you are still in prison...and will likely take months to years."
Your point? All of this is also true with private lawyers.
"In general, your assumptions are very much that for someone wrongfully accused, the justice system will be kind and work in the most ideal way possible."
Not at all! Stop incorrectly patronizing me! I believe more or less the opposite.
"Re: Miranda rights, the Supreme Court recently gutted that, making it far, far more difficult to ensure that any given accused has been read and understands their rights."
Source?
worst of both worlds.