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.
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.
How does the result of committing perjury ("a miscarriage of justice") factor into whether or not it's been committed? AIUI (IANAL), perjury requires three conditions be met: a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3).
Can you provide a citation or point to some case law for my edification, please?
Point 1 -- materiality: "Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding."
Point 2 -- resulting in a miscarriage of justice: "Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice."
> a materially false statement (1) made with intent to deceive (2) while under oath or affirmation (3).
Necessary but not sufficient. One must still meet the materiality and miscarriage of justice tests.
Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether its commission results in a miscarriage of justice or not. It describes the elements of the crime as: an oath, an intent, a falsehood, and the materiality of that falsehood.
Not to disparage that august institution, but I think something more authoritative than a Wikipedia citation is probably warranted to establish whether the result of an action is necessary for that action to be criminal, instead of the usual Model Penal Code standard of mens rea coupled with actus reus.
> Perjury, as a Federal crime, is defined under 18 USC § 1621 [1], which, to my reading, is silent about whether the commission of perjury results in a miscarriage of justice or not.
So it seems. In researching this, I see that the "miscarriage of justice" issue has two effects -- it often determines whether a case of perjury is pursued at all, and it affects the nature of the punishment (the sentencing phase). But it's not part of the formal definition that might lead to a determination of guilt. So I was wrong to state it the way I did earlier.
The "miscarriage of justice" issue is important, but it's not part of the definition of perjury -- it only affects whether a case is pursued by a prosecutor, and it may then influence the punishment.
Thanks for the response with a bit of context from that perspective.
However, I would think that "material to the issue" and "miscarriage of justice" would both apply to the potential, or particularly actual, conviction of another person based on false testimony.
Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial and judgment based upon said testimony.
The courts might also consider context, where the fact of a member of law enforcement committing perjury might be considered particularly onerous, and worrisome in that it may reflect a repeated pattern across multiple cases and potentially across multiple law enforcement officers if it reflects de facto policy and/or improper training and supervision.
Finally, effective law enforcement in this country is meant to depend upon and engender public trust -- and participation, amongst other things in the direct form of the jury. Failure to investigate and prosecute frankly criminal behavior on the part of law enforcement undermines this foundation.
Witness areas such as those described in the OP, where law enforcement ends up in certain respects being "another gang".
P.S. I might add that, with respect to the incentives that the OP article describes, it appears that the perjuring law officer may stand, directly or through their organization, to gain materially as a result of their false testimony.
Not only are they bearing false witness, they are doing so for material benefit.
Which speaks to the nature of the incentives and metrics described.
> Perjuring oneself while under deposition can lead to prosecution without any "miscarriage of justice" having taken place in the form of a concluded trial and judgment based upon said testimony.
No, as far as I know and in most jurisdictions -- for it to be perjury, among the other conditions already listed, there must be a resulting miscarriage of justice. BTW IANAL.
EDIT: the "miscarriage of justice" issue often affects a prosecutor's decision to pursue a case, and it affects the sentencing phase, but it's not actually part of the formal definition. I was wrong.
> The courts might also consider context, where the fact of a member of law enforcement committing perjury might be considered particularly onerous ...
Yes, but that only applies to sentencing, not the issue of guilt. Whether the facts support a conviction of perjury is separate from the issue of an appropriate punishment after a conviction.
I guess I shouldn't conflate the courts with the prosecutor's office (and law enforcement itself, for that matter).
And IANAL -- NEC (Not Even Close) -- myself. BTW, I hope that acronyms suffice in such disclaimers. ;-)
The P.S. that I added to my grandparent, I wrote before you followed up. So, it was not in response to your response.
Beginning to feel too much like a lawyer, just writing these convolutions...
I appreciate your level-headed, and researched, responses. Admittedly, I'm going more than a bit on emotion, here.
Without being overly versed in the details of the law, I watch the contemporary results and trends in this country with a growing horror. Of course, that may reflect my own particular circumstances [1] as much or more than an objective (however defined) measure of actual circumstances.
--
[1] Including e.g. aging, competing with production environments that don't have to meet my own's level of expenses including due to regulatory and safety expenses, respect for IP, etc.
Regarding your "If a person is accused of lying under oath, what's to stop him from lying more during the perjury trial?" - What's to stop an accused murderer from lying more during the murder trial? Does this prevent us from handling murder trials?
In a perjury trial, why do you need to ask anything at all? You have the documented testimony where the accused said X under oath, and you have the facts/evidence proving not X.
You need to ask, because that's what a trial is for. To give folks a chance to defend themselves; to allow mercy into the process.
Its pretty common for Engineers to deconstruct social processes into algorithms, but the humanity often gets lost.
Let me try: lying under oath happens during someone else's trial, when you're bound by law to tell the truth. During your perjury trial you're protected by the 5th amendment, so the process must by necessity involve information-gathering from external sources. Whether you lie or not then becomes almost immaterial.
> What's to stop an accused murderer from lying more during the murder trial?
In that case, it would increase the roster of crimes the defendant is accused of. Not so for someone already accused of perjury.
> In a perjury trial, why do you need to ask anything at all?
In a perjury trial, the defendant's attorney might try to argue that the defendant didn't know what he said was false. Perjury requires knowing falsehoods, not inadvertent misstatements of fact. Or the attorney might try to argue that the falsehoods weren't material to the issues being tested in court. There are other defenses -- mental incompetence and others.
The cops work for and with the prosecutors. They're the ones that do investigations, collect evidence, and pick up suspects. That's why prosecutors won't cross them.
>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.
> 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"
>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".
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.
Simple solution - like with legal practice, if you're thrown out (disbarred) you can't mention the job without also mentioning the having been thrown out. Then let people choose to pretend they hadn't been police at all or admit what happened, as they prefer.
I've seen this happen a number of times on reddit. Someone claims police brutality, the thread escalates to the main page, then eventually dies down with the top few posts taking a cool-headed stance. In fact, there have been times when I have found my own opinion on the less moderate side of the hivemind's consensus, and I consider myself fairly trigger-shy when it comes to criticizing the police for doing their job (possibly because I've never been on the wrong side of an arrest).
I've heard the claim repeated many times that "democratic oversight" could never work because people, in general, are too soft-hearted to understand the realities of policework. It just doesn't ring true to me: if anything, people tend to ignore violence if it has nothing to do with them.
I suppose this might be true in general (in a world where footage is not expected) --but if footage were to become commonplace, even expected (and this evidence), then there would have to a revisit to what's allowed and what isn't and what transgresses into police brutality (taking context into account, etc.) and what does not and how that would affect lawsuits, etc.
> Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed.
I have to disagree. Their job is to maintain social control using violence (and the threat of it). If you take food from a store and give it to a hungry person, you'll face a man with a stick.
What happens when you watch a DVD movie? You get threatened that a man with a stick will come after you if you copy it. Similar goes if you simply have the wrong color, which once meant you were a slave... or engage in civil disobedience.
We can fantasize about how something like "police" would act in a future society, who just focus on real problems like violent drunks and child abusers. But that's not our world. We're like people under feudalism talking about how the king is a benevolent administrator of people's needs.
Let me preface this statement by saying that I am a libertarian opposed to the excess powers granted to some police and the corrupt situations in which they may be found.
However, in a city like NYC I (anecdotally) find that in the overwhelming cases I've encountered the police have focused on real problems like violent drunks and child Abusers. For case in point, I was with a group moving frm a party to a bar and we (lapsing judgement) carried a few beers with us for the walk over. Definitely not violent drunks.
An undercover cop car was driving by and had (presumably) no choice but to detain us. In the end, he laughed at us and told us to pound our beers since we already got in trouble for them anyway (seriously, they laughingly told us to finish our beers off to the side while they wrote the ticket). It ended up behind a minor citation ($30) and a wink and get on with your night. Not a big deal.
I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole all or even most officers as someone who will show Up "with a stick". While I lament unreasonable open container laws, these guys handled things very profrofessionally and respectfully.
Maybe I got a skewed sample, but I, being pretty libertarian have been pretty impressed with the pragmatism and respect I've seen with the NYPD.
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?
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.