11–20 of 130 posts
I'm sure it happens, I'm sure it's terrible, but I'm sure interviewing people isn't a useful means of doing anything about it. The whole premise is that people lie and are incentivized to do so, but somehow this is magically not true of the people telling you about the lies?
Story about people lying is exclusively based on interviewing a few people and trusting that they are telling the truth about people lying. I'm sure it happens, I'm sure it's terrible, but I'm sure interviewing people isn't a useful means of doing anything about it. The whole premise is that people lie and are incentivized to do so, but somehow this is magically not true of the people telling you about the lies?
> The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”
Actually there have been studies showing that police lie much more than the general public. E.g. here is a summary of one such study showing that:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...
On a historic note, Stalin's first, bloodiest purges were also governed by quotas and the heads of various departments of the secret police (NKVD) trying to one up each other, exerting pressure on their subordinates, and in the absence of judicial oversight. Stalin ended up replacing over-enthusiastic NKVD chiefs twice, and the last one, the one we remember the most and whose name, Beria, we come to associate with th…
You know things are bad when Josef Stalin replaces you because you're overenthusiastic.
Story about people lying is exclusively based on interviewing a few people and trusting that they are telling the truth about people lying. I'm sure it happens, I'm sure it's terrible, but I'm sure interviewing people isn't a useful means of doing anything about it. The whole premise is that people lie and are incentivized to do so, but somehow this is magically not true of the people telling you about the lies?
You must have missed the part about hundreds of drug cases being thrown out because of such lies. Here it is from the OP > The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of…
The article backs up its case with: 1) Article written by a former police commissioner. 2) Quote about one actual case that apparently had some videotape proving a lie. 3) Bronx district attorney decides that the means to deal with lying is to interview the cops who are supposed to be lying about whether they are lying or not. 4) Back to former police commissioner again. 5) Passing reference to 'numerous scandals' 6) Interviews with 'numerous officers' by Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project
The former police commissioner writing an article, the supreme court justice, the police being interviewed about their lying, the folks investigating the 'numerous scandals', and the Urban Justice Center's Police Reform Organizing Project -all- have their own agendas, but everything they say is blindly taken as fact in the same article that claims humans lie every day. If you want to mistrust cops because their funding is tied to arrests, you should probably mistrust the urban justice police reform project because their very name is tied to proving the cops are wrong. Why is one side automatically trustworthy? Solely because they support the premise?
I feel like this could be an interesting topic, but approaching it from a he-said/she-said interviewing standpoint is laughable, it should be obvious that interviewing people about lying is downright counterproductive.
Falsifying evidence is the opposite of this job. Not just not doing the job, but doing its inverse. Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.
"Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie." Actually there have been studies showing that police lie much more than the general public. E.g. here is a summary of one such study showing that: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...
"Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie." Actually there have been studies showing that police lie much more than the general public. E.g. here is a summary of one such study showing that: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...
Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. (Actually stopping crimes in progress is secondary at best). Falsifying evidence is the opposite of this job. Not just not doing the job, but doing its inverse. Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.
Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.
I read the police report and they wrote that i wanted to sell them drugs but told them I had just taken the last of mine and recommended them to my friend.
They were rude and total dicks to everyone. In court the judge admonished them for grinding up on underage girls on their surveillance videos.