
Why police lie under oath - lisper
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html
======
ryanmarsh
My brother is in prison for murder. He did it and confessed to it. Still,
during the trial the detectives saw fit to lie under oath, and bring forth
evidence of his character (his diary) obtained illegally (they lied and said
it was obtained via a neighbor who found it in a trash can in his house 0_o).
All of this even though they had an open and shut case. It blew my mind that
in a case that they had in the bag and where the evidence of the crime itself
was enough to put him away forever they still did all of that. The story of
the diary was especially ridiculous. It's not like the detectives told some
whoppers just to make things easier on themselves. They lied about all sorts
of small things, like how his arrest actually happened. From that I learned to
fear the system. If they'll do that with a slam dunk case, what will they do
to get a conviction when the case is a tough one? How many men has this state
(Texas) executed as a result of this system?

~~~
IamBren
I'm not involved with anything remotely illegal but I still watched this all
the way through because of the police situation in the US:

"An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why
you should never agree to be interviewed by the police."

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>

It's quite fascinating really. The police officer he has come up to speak
talks about some of the tricks they use to get people to confess and they talk
about word tricks they use to get convictions even of innocent people. It's
pretty terrifying.

What I find interesting is how many TV shows depict suspects running their
mouths to the police like they're all buddies. You're NEVER supposed to do
that. Even innocent people can very easily incriminate themselves, as they
show in the above video.

Speaking of Texas and executions, have you ever read about Todd Willingham?

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?printable=true)

Willingham was convicted of "multiple infanticide" for burning his house down
with his daughters still inside. He maintained his innocence until the end,
and finally found a fire investigator to review the case shortly before he was
scheduled to be executed. The investigator provided conclusive evidence that
he DID NOT start the fire, but the Board of Pardons and Paroles apparently
didn't even read it:

“The only reasonable conclusion is that the governor’s office and the Board of
Pardons and Paroles ignored scientific evidence.”

And so, sadly, he was executed.

There are so many WTFs in this case, which is probably partly why the article
is so long. One thing that stood out is how the witness testimony changed from
"he was frantically trying to put the fire out" to "he didn't seem to be doing
much of all" after he was charged with starting the fire (the witnesses became
biased). And how the fire investigators could be high school drop outs with
minimal training, and how they used gut feelings and super outdated science
while investigating the case. Their investigation is really what caused him to
be convicted. Pretty sad story, and it seems to happen a lot like this,
especially in Texas.

------
ChuckMcM
My sister in law is a public defender, she has managed to get cops that lie
under oath fired. We're not talking capital crimes here, we're talking stupid
traffic citations where the officer would rather lie than admit they made a
bad call.

Her belief is that lying is like cocaine, you use it once to get through the
case because you know that even though its not strictly the truth the right
thing will happen, and then you use it because you really didn't prepare
enough, and suddenly its not a 'big deal' in your mind, after all these are
people committing crimes right? We're protecting the 'good' people from these
scumbags. And you lose yourself.

Exceptionally sad.

~~~
PeterisP
Why managing to get them fired is considered a good result?

Perjury is a serious crime and should be prosecuted as such. Cops should [be
made to] understand that lying in court even in small cases carries a risk of
criminal charges (in USA, up to 5 years IIRC) instead of internal disciplinary
action.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes it is, which is why I really felt President Clinton should have resigned
when he was proven to have perjured himself in the Monica Lewinsky
investigation. But as we saw with him, Barry Bonds, and others, it is not
effectively prosecuted. This is in part because the English language is so
malleable to interpretation that 'reasonable doubt' becomes a massive
impediment to conviction.

------
inuhj
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 my gf and then asked to buy drugs. I
told them I didnt have any. They begged. I said sorry I dont have any.

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.

~~~
dlokshin
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.

~~~
Anechoic
_any law that 80% of people on the freeway break is a terrible law._

They are actually supposed to be set so that 80-90% of the people are obeying
the limit (see MUTCD), but that often results in limits that are perceived as
being too high by communities.

~~~
Firehed
Why have speed limits at all then? I've heard anecdotes of professional
drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets because they know how to
handle a vehicle at that speed (and presumably had the good sense not to be
driving way faster than traffic if there even was any) and its certainly
possible to get a speeding ticket when traveling under the limit if conditions
do not permit.

Seems to me that they should be treated as good-weather guidelines (legally;
that's already more or less the case in practice), and focus on the people
driving recklessly - weaving in and out of traffic, going 10mph+ faster than
everyone else, tailgating, etc.

~~~
csense
> professional drivers getting out of massive speeding tickets

That seems unlikely.

> Why have speed limits at all then?

To reduce the frequency and severity of crashes.

To give people a baseline for safe speed. If most people's usual driving speed
is "10 mph over the limit," then the effective speed limit is simply N+10 mph,
where N is the number on the signs.

> tailgating

It's easy to deal with this effectively on your own. If you're being
tailgated, just take your foot off the gas until you're 10mph _under_ the
limit. The tailgater will pass you at the very first opportunity. It's magic!

~~~
cema

      If most people's usual driving speed is "10 mph over the limit," 
      then the effective speed limit is simply N+10 mph, 
      where N is the number on the signs.
    

A big "if". As I recall, when speed limits were raised on some of the highways
in Maryland from 55 mph to 65 mph, the traffic kept going at 72 mph.

In a society where everybody drives, speeds are set not so much by some kind
of a law but more by the natural course of human actions.

~~~
mindcrime
Yep, traffic is largely self-regulating. Most people know how fast it's safe
to drive and do it anyway. The others don't care about the "speed limit". Net
effect, the actual posted speed limit and associated laws and corrupt
bureaucracy are totally useless.

And never mind that "speed limits" are reverse engineered from observations of
the natural speed of traffic in a given area in the first place.[1]

[1]: <http://www.ite.org/standards/speed_zoning.pdf>

------
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.

~~~
fossuser
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.

~~~
gridaphobe
Interesting point about motorcycles. I wonder though, would motorcycles
actually benefit from seatbelts? In an accident a car will provide a
substantial amount of protection to the driver, so it's in the driver's
interest to be fastened in place. Perhaps it's actually better for the
motorcyclist to be separated from the bike as opposed to bring dragged along..

~~~
inchcombec
This is getting a bit off topic, but no, motorcycles would not benefit from
seatbelts. They would actually be a huge detriment. You're right with the idea
that it is advantageous to be separated from the motorcycle in a crash. Not
just due to not wanting to be dragged along however.

When I started riding a motorcycle several years back I took a proper safety
and rider training course. One of the strategies that could be employed for an
imminent crash was literally referred to as a "Superman Dive". Basically, you
see you're about to hit a car/truck so you put your feet on the footpegs,
hands on the gas tank and jump over the vehicle you're about to hit and then
do your best to roll when you hit the ground on the other side. A seatbelt
would naturally prevent this.

While hitting the ground on the other side of the vehicle and then going for a
roll is far from a good day, it beats going from whatever-speed-you're-at to
zero instantly when you're flung into the other vehicle. Since there is no
metal box around you on a motorcycle, rather than be a safety feature, a
seatbelt would limit or prevent actions that could seriously reduce the
chances and severity of injuries.

------
noonespecial
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.

~~~
jlgreco
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.

~~~
mc32
>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.

~~~
rdtsc
> but on the other hand they are just people -- as fallible as anyone.

Responsibilities, privileges, and risks should be clearly presented to anyone
applying for the position.

Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers. "Oh
they are just human, so they let the planes collide once in a while. No
biggie. Maybe 10 days paid vacation" -- No way, right? There would be talks of
manslaughter charges, putting better processes in place. Shorter shifts.

I can see "they are just people" excuse being used for those who are
involuntarily stuck in the situation. Police works is still voluntary
employment.

Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse. It is not just those few
cops that are corrupt that are bad, everyone who sees, but doesn't say
anything, is also part of the "spoiled bunch". I would guess most cops by now
have seen their colleagues do questionable things and didn't say anything. So
by this definition there are very few "good cops"

~~~
mc32
>Imagine, for example, we applied the same argument to ATC controllers.

One can't honestly compare the rigor and checks for a order of magnitudes
larger workforce. It's like saying the same rigor applied to space vehicles
should be taken to build cars or appliances. I mean, it's possible, but not
economically viable. Also, it's not the same kind of adrenalin inducing
scenario (i.e you're not thinking, "is this the plane that's coming for me"?
i.e. is this the guy who's going to take me down?)

>Also don't buy the "just a few bad cases" excuse.

Ok, but I never made any point about this.

I'm only saying that a system which relies on humans but does not account for
their fallibility will have a weakness which needs to be acknowledged and
addresed in order to be effective.

>So by this definition there are very few "good cops"

By that definition, there would be very few good people. People tend to give
people they know or work with "the benefit of doubt" or even "turn a blind
eye".

~~~
wnight
They might be good people but still be horrible cops. But being horrible cops
means they must not be cops.

Would you have such an accepting stance on teachers refusing to turn in a
rapist teacher? Betraying a trust must mean you lose your position
immediately, but it must also cost enough to make it honestly unattractive.

By not having strong and effective punishments for this we create perverse
incentives to betray others.

------
DenisM
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 the oppressive force, was actually less
brutal then the previous two (Yagoda and Ezhov).

~~~
mjn
It's veering a bit off-topic, but there's a fascinating historical debate on
the Purges going on since the opening of many Soviet archives post-1990. Some
historians (though not all) are moving away from the traditional view of
Stalin as mastermind in complete control of the situation, and are putting
more emphasis on machinations within the NKVD, which seems to have been the
source of a lot more independent activity than we had thought, with Stalin
often not appearing to be in the loop. In the strong form of the
interpretation that's led some to argue that the purges were primarily a
function of the bureaucratic machine, with Stalin mostly riding the wave and
trying to stay on top of the chaos. In fact they argue that the traditional
view, of Stalin as Machiavellian mastermind, was largely an invention of
Stalin himself, who was trying to appear in complete control of the situation.
Other interpretations revise the traditional view somewhat less, but most do
seem to be putting more emphasis on what was going on in the NKVD.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Makes sense. Bureaucracies are soulless moral-free machines good at crushing
individuals in some mindless goal of self-perpetuation. In fact, makes perfect
sense!

------
neilk
When I worked on a student newspaper in Montreal, a photographer of ours was
once detained by Metro (subway) cops and beaten in a back room.

I did the followup and a cop read the police report to me over the phone. It
detailed how the photographer had aggressively interfered with the police in
the performance of their duties, quoting the French profanities he had
uttered.

Problem: the photographer was a unilingual English-speaker from Ontario.

When they told me that, I got a little too excited about getting them to give
me these exact quotes from the report. The police officer suddenly said he'd
call me back. Fifteen minutes later, he called me back, opening with "aaah,
actually we don't know exactly what he said."

This isn't even the most interesting case of cops lying that I know of, but
you always remember your first.

------
Alex3917
"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...](http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_article2.shtml)

~~~
saalweachter
Studies have also shown that high status people lie more; police are high
status.

~~~
peteretep
> police are high status

And ... that's pretty much the problem.

In the UK, policing is meant to be consensual, by the "people" for the people.
The first police were intentionally recruited from lower classes to avoid the
whole high-status issue. It's not a well-paid job. Police Dramas like "The
Wire" in the US glamorise police work, where in the UK, we have "The Bill"
which makes it look dull as hell...

~~~
ChikkaChiChi
Point of clarification: While many US television shows glamorize police work,
"The Wire" is definitely not one of them.

"The Wire" shows a lot more of the police/political system trying to sweep
things under the rug than anything else. There is even a large portion of one
season dedicated to an officer falsifying evidence for his own personal
obsession with a completely different case.

------
saosebastiao
Link is broken for me. But it should be obvious...the reason cops do anything
that is illegal is that they are not subject to any consequences.

~~~
ricardonunez
They are free to do what they want and rarely get any punishment. The only
thing they get is Leave Without Pay for some time and that's only when they
screwed up really bad.

~~~
saosebastiao
If by bad you mean they committed mass murder.

------
wylie
There's a typo in the link, the one that works for me is:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-
police-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-
officers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
lisper
Bummer. Is there any way to go back and edit a submitted link? HN won't let me
resubmit the corrected link.

~~~
wylie
I think only mods can edit submissions, maybe they'll notice if this stays on
the homepage long enough

------
stcredzero
One of the things privileged members of society have a hard time understanding
is the cynical viewpoint of the underprivileged. What does one think when the
"justice" system commits fraud and one grows up realizing that you're too poor
to afford facts being facts and the truth being the truth? It's George
Orwell's "ultimate insult," writ savage.

 _> Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day
— even when there’s no clear benefit to lying._

Years ago, I mentioned the notion of never lying in front of my girlfriend's
mom, and she laughed out loud. I was shocked. Is this what most people are
really like? I'm beginning to think that I don't like most people.

------
pkteison
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?

~~~
danso
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
> 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.”_

~~~
pkteison
You actually think this is a good article? Most of that case was also just
testimony, this time people saying people are lying.

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.

~~~
danso
Ah yes, you're right. Anytime someone accuses cops of lying, those cops
usually go straight to jail, and judges rip them a new one. That is most
definitely how the system is stacked up, especially in New York.

And a few years ago, when an officer secretly taped his bosses deliberately
fudging statistics, that was just another case of biased recording
devices...chronic issue, for sure.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft>

I wonder why the author of that piece couldn't devote 30,000 exhaustive words
for the article. Another conspiracy of course.

------
ck2
The three word answer to this article is buried several paragraphs down:

 _because they can_

------
jrochkind1
> In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more
> than any other witness, perhaps less so.

At least in Maryland where I live, whether you trust the police less (or more)
so than other witnesses is one of the half dozen standard things they ask you
in voir dire, and saying yes will exclude you from serving on a jury.

------
mercurial
Disclaimer: my experience with US police officers is limited to being asked
questions by a couple of cops at the airport and watching _The Wire_.

Assuming that cops do actually have quotas, and that their bonus are tied to
achieving these quotas, this effectively creates a for-profit police force.
Which mechanically leads to aberrations like the DEA agent mentioned in the
Caswell case[1] who was paid taxpayer money to find private properties for
seizing. And who watches the watchmen?

Note this situation is not unique: in France, the former right wing government
put a heavy emphasis on crime statistics, and since the new "left wing"
interior minister seems to follow the same policies, it's probably still the
case.

1: [http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-
sh...](http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/)

~~~
robk
Please don't base your judgments of real life policing on Hollywood
productions.

~~~
Dylan16807
Did you actually read the comment you replied to? It doesn't base anything at
all on said productions; it was just a cute way of saying lack of exposure to
US police.

------
lutusp
Your link is broken. Here is a corrected one:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-
police-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-
officers-lie-under-oath.html)

------
nnq
...how expensive would it be to have all policemen use something like mini-
cameras with mikes on them and have a full video archive of all police
actions? If things like Google-glass catch on, the cost of a one way system
without the projector, plus a streaming system via mobile phone app will make
this disposable cheap (yeah, then we'll get into the privacy matter - like a
video of you being stopped for speeding with a hooker in your car risking to
get on youtube for your wife to see... but still)

------
welder
I've witnessed a police officer lying under oath. I think it was a combination
of bad recollection and justifying the lies as minor compared to the overall
situation.

------
linuxhansl
In the US perjury is a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five
years.

Does that somehow not apply to the police? If a cop's performance is measured
by number of arrests or convictions, and the repercussions of lying under oath
is maybe a suspension with pay or worst case being fired, I do not see how
this is going to change.

IMHO, law enforcement officials should be held to higher standard.

------
edmundhuber
Gopros for police officers?

------
hakaaaaak
Why aren't lie detectors used in court on a regular basis? Even if it didn't
work 100% of the time, it would be better than having to read posts like this.

~~~
csense
They aren't reliable.

If I was a suspect or witness testifying in a trial that could result in
myself or someone I know getting the death penalty or going to jail for a long
time, I'd be really nervous and maybe fail the lie detector even if my answers
were completely truthful.

OTOH a police officer who's used to lying to suspects (it's the main tool
police have in countries where torture or police brutality isn't allowed), or
a hardened psychopath criminal who doesn't see anything wrong with lying to
protect his own interests, may be so cool that he/she can easily pass the lie
detector.

------
Create
youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

------
ObnoxiousJul
Well it is a known QA practice: never base incentive on metrics or people will
cheat one way or another with the metrics. If your dev have a prime based on
SLA or tickets solved guess what? You are giving them an incentive to cheat.
You will have nice figures to show your investors, ypur stock options' values
will raise and coder will be better paid. Everyone is happy, who cares about
the truth, the unfairness, the lie. This is just mis placed moral. Stats that
can be tricked are the prozac of our society. It make the metrics describing a
situation improve with mutual benefits for (almost) all the stakeholders.

Who cares about the customers or minorities anyway? I mean not on the paper
but honestly?

~~~
Spooky23
Is even worse in NY -- quotas are illegal, yet they exist. But there is no
record of what quotas are assigned to a given detail of officers.

------
eriksank
Well, as soon as the first commandment goes down the drain, all other
commandments are quick to follow: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbour." Exodus 20:12. It is the general public who is to blame,
because they are not willing to enforce this. Police officers caught using
force on behalf of the politicians or their servants to transgress on Exodus
20:12 must be served a final extermination order without trial, procedure or
ceremony, executable by whoever happens to available and/or willing, because
such is the will of the supreme being.

