Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

False confessions

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: False confessions

#21

Post by StavrosK »

baddox wrote: post #18
Duff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lie" in the eye of the beholder. To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.

In the example, the cop testifies that when he first approached the defendant, the defendant admitted to placing his hand on the plaintiff's throat, but only as a joke. The defendant claimed that he never said anything of the sort to the cop. It was the cop's and plaintiff's word against the defendant's word, and the defendant was found guilty. How would it have helped if the defendant had said nothing to the cop? Th…

It's harder for the officer to lie and say that you said something when you refused to say anything.

It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.

Re: False confessions

#22

Post by spodek »

baddox wrote: post #12
Duff wrote: post #6

Rule #1: Don't talk to the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik You're better off taking the beating.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that exa…

"how exactly does not talking help you?"

You still communicate. You speak through your lawyer.

Re: False confessions

#23

Post by baddox »

StavrosK wrote: post #21
baddox wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the example, the cop testifies that when he first approached the defendant, the defendant admitted to placing his hand on the plaintiff's throat, but only as a joke. The defendant claimed that he never said anything of the sort to the cop. It was the cop's and plaintiff's word against the defendant's word, and the defendant was found guilty. How would it have helped if the defendant had said nothing to the cop? Th…

It's harder for the officer to lie and say that you said something when you refused to say anything. It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.

How so? If your interaction with the cop wasn't recorded, even if you started out by saying "I choose to remain silent" and never said another word, the cop can easily testify that you said something. I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.

Re: False confessions

#24

Post by StavrosK »

baddox wrote: post #23
StavrosK wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder for the officer to lie and say that you said something when you refused to say anything. It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.

How so? If your interaction with the cop wasn't recorded, even if you started out by saying "I choose to remain silent" and never said another word, the cop can easily testify that you said something. I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.

> I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.

It's easier because, when you fabricate an entire conversation rather than one sentence, you have to make up more things.

That's the purely technical argument. There are also psychological considerations on the part of the officer, people are more likely to rationalize making up one little thing than making up an entire conversation.

Re: False confessions

#25

Post by mc32 »

I think something like this would have a huge impact on the conviction rate in Japan where a significant amount is based in coerced confessions. See BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm

But this reminds me of the malleability of memory and also herd-like mentality. I think it was on Tv or somewhere where the experiment involved flooding a room with participants with fake smoke but confederates were set to deny it was smoke. The effect was that the fake smoke was ignored. Had it been a real fire, they'd all have perished.

Re: False confessions

#26

Post by akamaka »

michaelschade wrote: post #3

Unfortunately not a lab test, I saw this on Frontline recently and it was very disturbing to see that confessions could be so easily had: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/etc/... Essentially, the story involves these sailors individually confessing to a crime (and allegedly tailoring their confessions to the investigator's words) when they were implicated by someone already being interrogated.…

I came here to post this, so thanks for finding the link to share with everyone. I'm not usually a fan of crime-related TV documentaries, but this is one of the best episodes of Frontline I've seen, and was absolutely eye-opening for me. I highly recommend watching it!

Re: False confessions

#27

Post by ams6110 »

baddox wrote: post #13
autarch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police are generally under a lot of pressure to close cases. Getting a confession closes a case quickly and neatly. Watch The Wire to get an idea of what kind of pressures the police face to "solve" crimes.

Also, police have power. Power has a profound impact on most people, and generally not a good one.

They also can lie when they interrogate you. They can tell you your friend has already implicated you in the crime, even if it's not true.

Re: False confessions

#28

Post by foobarbazoo »

billswift wrote: post #20
baddox wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, police have power. Power has a profound impact on most people, and generally not a good one.

I think Frank Herbert had a point when he wrote that it isn't so much that having power corrupts, as the sort of people who seek power in the first place.

The experimental record disagrees with Frank Herbert: power corrupts.

It was worth doing the experiments though, so good on him.

Re: False confessions

#29

Post by InclinedPlane »

spodek wrote: post #22
baddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that exa…

"how exactly does not talking help you?" You still communicate. You speak through your lawyer.

If you're extra paranoid just print out a card that says "as a policy I do not speak to the police except through a lawyer". Then you can present it to the police as necessary and use it as evidence if they attempt to claim you confessed something to them without a lawyer present.

Re: False confessions

#30

Post by joe_the_user »

baddox wrote: post #12
Duff wrote: post #6

Rule #1: Don't talk to the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik You're better off taking the beating.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that exa…

Even if you are dealing with someone willing to lie about the situation, not talking helps you a lot because it gives them less material to work with. If they have to make something up whole-cloth, there's a higher chance that they'll make something up that couldn't possibly have happened. If they have your description of what really happened, they only have to alter a few details.
Post reply on HN