From the New York Times:
The [Bronx] court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police.
[...] "Behind closed doors, we call it testilying," a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. "You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit."
[...] An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer's testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.
In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects' hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight. They have barged into apartments and conducted searches, only to testify otherwise later. Under oath, they have given firsthand accounts of crimes or arrests that they did not in fact witness. They have falsely claimed to have watched drug deals happen, only to later recant or be shown to have lied.
[...] Many police officials and experts express optimism that the prevalence of cameras will reduce police lying. As officers begin to accept that digital evidence of an encounter will emerge, lying will be perceived as too risky — or so the thinking goes. [...]
Yet interviews with officers suggest the prevalence of cameras alone won't end police lying. That's because even with cameras present, some officers still figure — with good reason — that a lie is unlikely to be exposed. Because plea deals are a typical outcome [...]
"There's no fear of being caught," said one Brooklyn officer who has been on the force for roughly a decade. "You're not going to go to trial and nobody is going to be cross-examined."
[...] Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail — and that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free. Police falsehoods also impede judges' efforts to enforce constitutional limits on police searches and seizures.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 24 2018, @08:53PM (5 children)
It is shocking you even ask such a question -- does the Bill of Rights mean nothing to you? In particular the 4th Amendment? What do you think separates America (at least idealistically) from a police state if not limitations on police powers. Historically, citizens' own governments have proven to be the greatest danger citizens face with bodies stacking up by the millions. I for one will whole heartedly accept a few junkies causing statistically insignificant mayhem over a government that can arrest, imprison, and/or kill any citizen it wants.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:03AM (1 child)
You also might want to consider that a great deal of that mayhem is because of the law. If the drug was cheap (which it should be) and readily available (which it also should be) and there was somewhere safe for these idiots to pursue their idiot habit, they'd have many fewer motivations to commit mayhem. And of course, for those who do, it would be more easily seen and dealt with - because we have no shortage of laws dealing with mayhem, nor should we.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:27AM
agreed
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:24AM (2 children)
Do you honestly believe that at any point in history law enforcement was anything but get lucky and see the crime, or statistically profile the situation based on the police officers gut feeling. They watch and react to things that don't feel right. The nervous twitch, the likeness of some half assed off base witnesses remembrance of the way the criminal looked ? He was a black guy, no he was Mexican, no way he was a mickey for sure, driving a red/blue ford/dodge pickup/station wagon.
I watched a George Lopez comedy show once. He was complaining about a white chick asking him to help her unlock the door to her car at home depot. He said he was just about to get really pissed off because she was assuming the Mexican could unlock her door, when he realized he DID have a slim Jim, and could unlock her door.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:28AM (1 child)
What does that have to do with tyranny?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:11AM
What is the abuse of justice and power but tyranny ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge