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

Why police lie under oath

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: Why police lie under oath

#21

Post by noonespecial »

jlgreco wrote: post #19
noonespecial wrote: post #16

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.

Forget banned, they should be jailed, if not worse. They are undermining the entire legitimacy of the justice system, a cornerstone of our society. There are few worse crimes than undermining our ability to punish crime itself. Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.

I suppose it would only be fair that they received the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which they were making the false accusation. Bonus points for allowing the trial to procede untainted and then just transferring the sentence.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#22

Post by pasbesoin »

noonespecial wrote: post #21
jlgreco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget banned, they should be jailed, if not worse. They are undermining the entire legitimacy of the justice system, a cornerstone of our society. There are few worse crimes than undermining our ability to punish crime itself. Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.

I suppose it would only be fair that they received the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which they were making the false accusation. Bonus points for allowing the trial to procede untainted and then just transferring the sentence.

There are already laws against perjury, and in many cases, IIRC, it is a felony.

Ironic, isn't it, that prosecutors are unwilling to pursue all these potential felony convictions...

Re: Why police lie under oath

#23

Post by OGinparadise »

noonespecial wrote: post #16

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.

Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.

Not enough, IMO. The should face the same sentence the accused would have. But then, will we find enough cops and prosecutors without sins to throw the stones?

Re: Why police lie under oath

#24

Post by siphor »

The whole system is blatantly fucked up and I'm more stunned by people's non-chalant reaction or 'it's the law reaction'.

I live in a small town in New Jersey where my mom works for the town.. recently there was a police 'strike' around contract negotiations, where, to prove the town should give them a raise they stopped writing tickets to show the town how much money the police department makes them. What this means to me (and I'm pretty sure is obvious) is that they stopped writing stupid 'money making' tickets and were actually... doing their job of protecting its citizens.

The worst thing about all of this is I have no idea how to fix it.

I can rant on shit like this for a long time but I'll ask one question that hopefully someone will be inclined to share their opinion.

I think one major problem (that most seem to disagree about) is the slowly creeping loss of personal freedom 'for the publics best interest' I think speed limit's are against this freedom, is it really that inconceivable to believe we can't judge what is a safe speed? (obviously reckless driving would still be a thing that police would be used for) or even smaller... Why is it a law that I must wear a seatbelt? Or even drugs.. why does any law care if I want to smoke crack?

this may have been off topic sorry.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#25

Post by lutusp »

pasbesoin wrote: post #22
noonespecial wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it would only be fair that they received the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which they were making the false accusation. Bonus points for allowing the trial to procede untainted and then just transferring the sentence.

There are already laws against perjury, and in many cases, IIRC, it is a felony. Ironic, isn't it, that prosecutors are unwilling to pursue all these potential felony convictions...

Lawyers tell me that judges rarely prosecute lying under oath, they just rule against the liars.

The reason? If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial? He's already accused of that crime, so more lies makes little difference. This is why perjury trials are so rare.

Also, "perjury", strictly defined, means testimony that's both material to the issues and leads to a miscarriage of justice. That's a tough standard.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#26

Post by gonehome »

siphor wrote: post #24

The whole system is blatantly fucked up and I'm more stunned by people's non-chalant reaction or 'it's the law reaction'. I live in a small town in New Jersey where my mom works for the town.. recently there was a police 'strike' around contract negotiations, where, to prove the town should give them a raise they stopped writing tickets to show the town how much money the police department makes them. What this means…

I generally agree with this, but it gets tricky when you factor in social services.

If a society decides that it should support health or medical services with public funds then there is a line of logic that conditions based on that support (such as a seatbelt laws, drug laws, or even banning soda) should be allowed.

I don't agree with this, but if I was arguing for that side that would be how I'd frame it.

The seatbelt law is particularly weird to me considering that motorcycles are perfectly legal.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#27

Post by [deleted] »

siphor wrote: post #24

The whole system is blatantly fucked up and I'm more stunned by people's non-chalant reaction or 'it's the law reaction'. I live in a small town in New Jersey where my mom works for the town.. recently there was a police 'strike' around contract negotiations, where, to prove the town should give them a raise they stopped writing tickets to show the town how much money the police department makes them. What this means…

[deleted]

Re: Why police lie under oath

#28

Post by dlokshin »

inuhj wrote: post #20

I was arrested when I was 18 after a guy I was with was caught selling mdma at a gathering in the desert. The police report was filled with lies. The officers approached me during the night(it was 10F) and asked to sit in my car. I was having a heart to heart with my girlfriend but obliged because they were obviously cold and being welcoming is part of that subculture. They made some lewd inappropriate comments about…

Wholeheartedly agree with the erosion of personal freedoms in the favor of laws made by people 'who know better.' Speeding is a perfect example--any law that 80% of people on the freeway break is a terrible law.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#29

Post by mc32 »

jlgreco wrote: post #19
noonespecial wrote: post #16

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.

Forget banned, they should be jailed, if not worse. They are undermining the entire legitimacy of the justice system, a cornerstone of our society. There are few worse crimes than undermining our ability to punish crime itself. Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.

>Extraordinary responsibility should be balanced with extraordinary liability.

I agree on principle. I think it's quite corrupt and defeatist to think otherwise, but on the other hand they are just people --as fallible as anyone. Other than watchmen for the watchmen ad infinitum, I don't know that this kind of problem would ever be eradicated. (something like Google Glass for the police could work, if people allow that police work necessitate some ugliness at times (i.e. realize that sometimes drugged out people or domestic abuser need to be knocked out, for example. I mean that occasionally, there is an ugliness people might not want to admit exists but is necessary.)

I think one has to consider the human factor in this and be aware of that when designing policing solutions.

Re: Why police lie under oath

#30

Post by thoughtcriminal »

DenisM wrote: post #7

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…

Stalin was and will always be one of the most evil mass murderers in history. The fact he was responsible for the death of tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe is hard to fathom - but it's true.

It baffles the mind how he could have got so far. It must be in part because people didn't speak up early on, either out of fear or because they were uninformed.

Unspeakably sad how bad it got. They probably thought it wasn't possible. Perhaps too trusting?

People today can never become complacent. Never be too distracted, preoccupied or inconvenienced to speak up and stand up against oppression. Even when the oppression is from our own elected governments.

Post reply on HN