Posted on 05/11/2008 9:16:18 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[Originally published in The Blue Press, from Dillon Precision]
Just Say Nothing by Dave Kopel
What if you've just been arrested for something which shouldn't be a crime? For instance, if a burglar breaks into your home, attacks your children and you shoot him. Should you talk to the police in detail about what happened? In a word, "No." Shut up, call the best lawyer you can find, and then continue to shut up. If you talk to the police, you will only make things worse for yourself.
Sociologist Richard Leo has written several articles which detail the deliberately deceptive techniques which police use to extract a confession.
First of all, since 1986 the Unites States Supreme Court has required that all persons under arrest be given the Miranda warnings, so that they will know that they have a right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer. So how do police convince a suspect to talk, even after the Miranda warning?
Professor Leo explains that "police routinely deliver Miranda warnings in a perfunctory tone of voice and ritualistic behavioral manner, effectively conveying that these warnings are little more than a bureaucratic triviality." Of course, the Miranda warnings are not trivial; your liberty may hinge on heeding those warnings.
No matter how strong the other evidence against you, a confession will make things much worse. A confession often makes the major difference in the district attorney's willingness to prosecute the case, and his willingness to accept a plea bargain. If your confession gets before a jury, your prospects of acquittal are virtually nil.
If you are foolish enough to reject the Miranda warnings, simply put, the police interrogators will attempt to deceive you into confessing. As a result of increased judicial supervision of the police, deception, rather than coercion ("the third degree") has become the norm for interrogation.
First of all, you will be kept in a physical environment designed to make you want to waive your rights and talk. You will most likely be kept in isolation, in a small, soundproof area. By isolating you, the interrogator attempts to instill feelings of anxiety, restlessness and self-doubt on your part. Left alone for long periods, you may think you are being ignored, and will therefore be happy to see the interrogator return.
Ideally, from the interrogator's viewpoint, you will begin to develop the "Stockholm syndrome," in which persons held captive under total control begin to identify and empathize with their captors. This can occur after as few as ten minutes of isolation in captivity.
While increasing your dependence, the interrogator works to build your trust by pretending that he cares about you, that he wants to hear your story, and that he understands how difficult it may be for you to talk. The interrogator works to become your only source of social reinforcement.
There is no law against outright lies or other deceptions on the part of police during an interrogation. Almost certainly, you will be told that the prosecutor and the judge will be more lenient if you confess. This is a complete lie. The district attorney will be more lenient if you don't confess and he can't make a strong case against you, and therefore has to settle for a plea bargain. Nothing the police promise in the interrogation room is binding on the police, much less on the district attorney.
There are five "techniques of neutralization" which the interrogator may use in order to make you feel that the crime really wasn't so bad, and that it is therefore all right for you to confess. Of course the interrogator's pretense that he doesn't think the crime was serious will last only as long as necessary to obtain the confession.
The first technique is called "denial of responsibility," allowing the subject to blame someone else for the offense. For example, "it was really the burglar's fault for breaking in; he's the one to blame for getting shot." (That's true, but it's you, after all, that the police are interrogating.)
Another technique is "denial of injury." For example, "The burglar wasn't really hurt; he walked out of the hospital two hours ago." Maybe true, maybe not. In truth, the burglar could be in intensive care and the interrogator could be laying the groundwork for a murder case against you.
In the "denial of the victim" technique, the interrogator will suggest that the victim deserved what he got.
"Condemnation of the condemners" is always popular. For instance, "the real problem is all those anti-gun nuts who let criminals run loose, but don't want guys like you to defend themselves." True enough, but when the policeman saying this is holding you prisoner, take his sincere expression with a large grain of salt.
Finally, there's the "appeal to higher loyalties" such as "What you did is a common sense thing. Regardless of some legal technicality, the most important thing is for you to protect your family. Your family comes first, right?" True again, but the man saying this wants you to confess to violating the legal technicality, so you can be prosecuted for it.
A close cousin to the denial strategies are the "normalizing" techniques, in which the interrogator claims to understand that the crime was not typical behavior for the subject; "I can see that you're not a violent person. You're not a criminal. You're a tax-paying, home-owning, regular kind of guy. What happened tonight was really unusual for you, wasn't it?"
You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by talking. You are not going to outsmart the interrogator. Even if you don't end up producing a full confession, you may reveal details which will help build a case against you.
Most violent criminals are too stupid to read, and too lazy to pursue a time-consuming, high-precision hobby like handloading. So I'm not worried that a violent criminal will read this column, and avoid confessing to a serious crime. Anyone who does commit a violent crime should confess, since they've done something that is wrong. Too often in America, good citizens are arrested for victimless "crimes," including unjustifiable (and unconstitutional) gun regulations. The routine use of deception in order to trick good citizens into confessions is something that deserves more scrutiny than it has thus far received.
In the long run, routine deception by the police tears at our social fabric, and undermines the law enforcement system. The more police lie, the more skeptical juries are going to be, even when police are telling the truth.
Moreover, there are about 6,000 false confessions for felonies every year in the United States. (Huff et al., "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," Crime & Delinquency, vol. 32, pages 518-44, 1986). False confessions are one of the major reasons for the conviction of innocent persons.
Why would someone make a false confession?
I’m a big fan of the Emotional Confession portion that seems to come at the end of every CSI episode.
This is actually good advice in ANY police situation. Call a lawyer and SHUT UP!
Even traffic stops involve intimidation. have you been drinking? Do you have any drugs or weapons?
May I search your vehicle?
Answer no and then they raise the intimidation. Step out of the vehicle sir.
Everyone is assumed guilty of something by the cops and they will do anything to get a person to hang themselves.
Cops are helpless to stop criminals. But they are in complete control in making new criminals.
>Cops are helpless to stop criminals. But they are in complete control in making new criminals
Had me until that. The statement is patently false on every level.
Possible reasons:
1. They get “beat down” (not physically) and want the immediate situation to be over with.
2. They get convinced they will be convicted no matter what and that a confession will bring a lessor punishment. (Unfortunately there may be some truth there. A judge may impose a lessor sentence if the defendant shows remorse for what he did which includes admitting the wrong. So if you are innocent and maintain your innocence but get convicted anyway, you can get more severe punishment than someone who actually commits a crime.)
3. They may have been drunk or otherwise impaired at the time of the offenses and get convinced that they did something they don't remember due to the impairment.
4. A long “interview” leaves them mentally, spiritually and physically debilitated and they make a mistake.
5. In colloquial, nonprofessional terms: Some people are nuts.
please explain how my statement could be false?
When I took a mandatory class prior to getting my concealed carry permit, the instructor (a former LEO) was emphatic about keeping one’s mouth shut if you ever had cause to use your weapon in self-defense.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
BTTT
My basic planned and prepared response if I survive is , Officer I have been involved in an act of self defense and wish to make no other statement without “MY” lawyer present. But I am willing to pick up my brass if you want me too !
...... Littering is unethical.
Shoot too stop the threat as a last resort every time.
Stay safe !
About 30 years ago I received a call from a detective asking if I would come down to the PD because he wanted to interview me about some crime that occurred in the neighborhood. I do remember him being surprised when I told him no, if he wanted to talk to me, he knew where I lived. Never heard from him again so I have no idea what it was all about.
A gold star for you !!!
They can create a new criminal out of thin air.
See how this works in a domestic dispute.... Out of thin air a man can be charged with crimes that were never comitted, on hearsay evidence alone. I've seen it happen twice.
Stop littering. Use a revolver for your self defense!
Something very close to that happened to me, but instead of even talking to him I gave him my lawyer’s phone #. My lawyer told him, “If you want to speak to my client indict him and get him in front of a Grand Jury.” Never heard from them again.
On the other hand, if the police come to where you live and you let them in they can “search” (not necessarily formally or officially) and find something illegal you didn't know about.
On the other other hand, if we can help apprehend a criminal, most of us want to help, as long as we ourselves are not the “criminal” they want to apprehend.
Ain't nothin’ easy, and it seems like all the breaks go to the actual criminals and the legal bureaucracy.
A friend of my Brother has been a cop for over 20 years. He told my Brother that if you ever shoot someone breaking into your home, all you tell the Police is “I was in fear for my life”. That’s it.
Get your Lawyer to be your spokesman.
I have comfortable chairs on my front porch. The only LEO’s who are permitted inside my home without a warrant are long time friends who are coming for lunch, dinner or the evening. In most cases, I and/or the Mrs have been inside their homes first.
That’s almost exactly the same advice I have been given. In the interest of saving the community money, wait until the perp stops breathing before calling 911.
For example: someone embezzles a few thousand from their employer, simple felony theft. He buys a bass boat and a video game with it (money laundering: 5 years). He doesn't report the money as income (tax evasion: 10 years). He is offered a plea deal: 5 years, out in 2. If he loses at trial: many years, especially if he qualifies as a repeat offender.
I know someone who was faced with this and who accepted the plea. Based on everything I know now, he was guilty of something, but not of the crime he plead guilty to, and would not have been really guilty of the crimes he would have gone to trial with. So, now he is a felon. The state spent several tens of thousands on the incarceration he did get, he is shut out of many jobs because of his record, and the law enforcement establishment still to this day treats him like they have power and control over his life, even though he served the time he was sentenced to.
This is not to excuse his crime, for which he appears to be very sorry he did. An essential point of justice must remain: the punishment must fit the crime. Justice is never served when the charge is increasingly unrelated to the actual criminal act. It becomes a form of legal revenge, or social wrath on people we can coerce into admitting they did wrong.
People who want a peaceful and law-abiding society and who think we must be tough on law-breakers should be careful about what is going on. With every passing year it gets easier and easier for the average citizen, who intends on obeying the law, to find they have violated some obscure rule or regulation. If anyone reading this has ever thrown away a rechargeable battery in a landfill, they could be charged with a felony. Fill in the wet spot in your back yard? You may follow others who have damaged "wetlands" to federal prison. Fix a degraded and badly eroding streambank? You may face a crippling fine for disturbing the habitat of a federally-protected species.[1]
We are rapidly approaching the point anticipated by Ayn Rand in her novel Atlas Shrugged:
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”
(”Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3)
[1] Saving soil without a permit puts farmer in cross hairs of EPA http://www.mofb.org/FBPeople-WendellCurtman.html
See my post about ‘crime deconstruction’. Touching your brass would be the criminal act of ‘tampering with evidence’ or ‘impeding an investigation’, or any of a number of crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.