from the when-did-you-stop-beating-your-dead-horse dept.
A lawyer and psychologist expose the interrogation techniques that make people confess to crimes they didn't commit.
Would you confess to a crime you didn't commit?
It's a question to which most people would respond with a confident and resounding "no".
That is because few people are aware of the techniques police in the United States are permitted to use during interrogations; techniques that presume guilt and are designed to break people down into a sense of complete despair before offering them one route out: a confession.
In fact, in the US, more than 25 percent of overturned wrongful convictions involve a false confession. [...]
Ed's notes: Firstly, apparently there's a vid accompanying the story, which those of us on prehistoric browsers are destined not to see. Secondly, of course, there's no reason that this should be a US-specific thing, as deep down it's just applied game theory. -- FP
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @09:10AM (7 children)
Nice editorializing. Has the dearth of comments here now reached the point where even the whattaboutisms must be provided by the editors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @09:54AM (3 children)
It's nowhere near US specific. See Japan. Actually, see most countries and you'll get similar treatment but often for political reasons. There are actually few countries that give a fuck about justice in this world.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:32PM (1 child)
It is certainly nowhere near US specific. To my shame it has happened in my country. Probably quite a lot, but this case takes the biscuit:
The story here is quite long, [radionz.co.nz] so here are a few key points:
In my view we ought to feel ashamed of the way our legal system treated that young man, but we don't. We just sort of shrug and move on. It will no doubt happen again. He was given a million bucks compensation, but I'm not sure its worth it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @01:55PM
I agree that is a shame. Is it that you and your family learned of this 20 years after the fact or are you just ashamed for his sake that no one else did anything while everyone marveled over what a shame it would be if he was convicted, and then agreed that yes indeed, quite the same, but better him than me if they are going to pull undesirables off the street and accuse them of things.
that was unnecessarily harsh, but... i hear a lot of "how terrible" from people that don't do anything. complaining usually only helps if it gets the people responsible held responsible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @06:30AM
While that too is true it is the point of this article that US is not among those countries. And these fuckers think they are so great, a chosen people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Whoever on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:15PM (2 children)
It's not whataboutism. It's a blatant falsehood. It's why policing in the US is such a disgrace: because ignorant people think that it cannot be better.
Police in the US use an interrogation technique that it designed to coerce a confession, irrespective of the truth (Reid). In the UK, they use the "PEACE" technique, which is designed to get to the truth. Also, every interview is recorded.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/how-the-uk-police-interview-suspects/ [innocenceproject.org]
If you can access it, there is a UK documentary series: "24 hours in police custody".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @02:05AM
The UK also conducts mass surveillance on its populace, similar to what the US does. I could believe that there are fewer false confessions there, but not that they don't have an issue at all.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday March 23 2019, @02:21AM
Was just about to say the same thing. The US uses the Reid Technique, which is the psychological equivalent of beating a confession out of someone. It's designed around the assumption that the suspect is guilty and this is what you need to do to get them to confess. I don't know of many other first-world/rule-of-law countries that use this method of "interrogating" suspects. In all innocence I once asked a friend's brother, a cop, whether we use the Reid Technique here (a non-US country), and he was horrified and mumbled something along the lines of "no, and we don't use using cattle prods either".
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @09:45AM (14 children)
Luckily, it only reorientated my view of society and the world and now I don't care about anyone else. Other than that the cost was minimal.
What I really learned was that in any situation where you are detained GET A LAWYER and don't say a word to an authority figure without one present. If the cops want your ID, fine. Otherwise ask if you are being detained or charged. Walk away. If you can't walk away CALL A LAWYER.
Not a nice lesson to learn in my 40s.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by legont on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)
Almost any lawyer would tell you not even think about fighting the case, but to get a confession deal.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:50PM
Troll? Idiots with modpoints.
That may be the "optimal" rational position of a lawyer to take on your behalf, in terms of prison time. It doesn't address the scarlet letter F that you will carry around for the rest of your life, plus you may be that sentimentally attached to having the public know you are innocent.
If you veto your lawyer's advice to plead guilty, do you still have access to a defense? Or will no lawyer take your case unless you plead guilty?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:31PM (4 children)
I have never needed legal services. Does anyone have advice what to do if you are custody and need a lawyer but do not know who to call? Call a family member with the details on your situation and let them find you a lawyer?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:42PM (1 child)
just call the family member with the charge (no details on the jail phone. criminals don't care about any privacy rights laws) and ask them to get you a lawyer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @01:06AM
Good piece of advice. Jail phones are considered "public" and can be tapped at will. The only exception is when you are talking to your lawyer, but the jail staff usually has separate phones for that and will call themselves to verify you actually are talking to your attorney.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @01:01AM
IANYL and I have no idea of your jurisdiction, but around here: Just repeatedly ask for a lawyer. Even though they can reasonably attempt to persuade you otherwise, eventually they will see their efforts are futile and either give you one, the paperwork to see if you financially qualify, or stop dealing with you completely, which could mean letting you go or throwing you in a cell. If thrown in a cell, they will cut you loose or put you in front of a judge the next day. In front of the judge, as again and they will either give you one right then or ask you to fill out the paperwork. Either way, they'll probably set your bond or cut you loose before too much more happens, and bondsmen usually get a kickback for referrals so they are more than happen to give you a business card or five (but note, your lawyer is legally obligated to tell you any consideration they give per referral). Otherwise, just check something like Avvo or U.S. News or yelp for reviews of lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @03:41AM
Yes. If you can. I now have multiple phone numbers for lawyers in my phone.
The question I should have asked after being kicked into jail was: Who is paying for my salary while I am not at work?
Justice? Yeah. Not likely. Getting penalties paid for being wrongfully incarcerated? Slightly more favourable.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:13PM (6 children)
Don't talk to the police. [youtube.com]
It helps a great deal to understand the motivations. Sadly, the cops can be more interested in appearances than reality. They want to look tough and competent, look like they can solve those criminal mysteries and keep citizens safe from the bad guys. To that end, some care more about whether they can make a suspect look guilty regardless of actual guilt or innocence. They want to burnish their crime fighting statistics. And so they are not above exerting unfair pressure on a suspect to confess. We like to think innocents would never confess. But some would, to stop the torture that police say is not torture. If the choice is, be held in jail another 3 days or more, or get released now on bail if you confess, what do you do? Keep in mind that some people are in a situation where a 3 day stay behind bars will derail their life. If they don't report to work on time the next work day, they'll be fired, and then they won't be able to pay the rent and will be evicted.
Police can also be simpleminded, see things in black and white. That's why they have this absolute notion that no innocent would ever confess. Anyone who confesses must indeed be guilty. Simple. Makes their jobs easier. It's not that they purposefully created a system to be unfair, they twisted it without being fully cognizant that they did so, to make their lives easier, by enabling mental sloppiness and laziness, make the world conform to their expectations. They will even tell themselves that it doesn't matter if they got it wrong, because the suspect probably did something else to deserve prison time.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:00PM (4 children)
It's worse. They excuse themselves for their interrogation tactics because they "know" you are guilty, so anything they do that gets you to confess is just "getting at the truth". And since they "know" you're just a felonious scumbag, anything short of pulling your fingernails out or tying you to a railroad track is "justice".
They like to avoid recordings and other documentation of your interrogation so they don't have "deluded bleeding hearts" interfere with their important mission of "justice" by talking about things like innocent until proven guilty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:07PM (3 children)
Sounds like you learned everything you know from TV shows. I'd bet you are also expert on diagnosing obscure cases of Lupus?
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Friday March 22 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)
It's never Lupus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @03:46AM
Until.. it is!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday March 22 2019, @10:42PM
No. Interviews of real cops on TV and talking socially with real cops personally.
You can learn a lot by just letting people talk without putting them on the spot.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday March 22 2019, @04:28AM
> Police can also be simpleminded, see things in black and white.
Given that having too high an IQ bars you from getting hired as a police officer in some places, it's probably simpler than that: they are stupid. Occam's razor, etc.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @11:06AM (3 children)
i enjoy trolling cops, with exactly this thing.
I come up to one, indicating remorse and emotional pain with me body language, and tell them i have a terrible thing to confess.
You can see it's eyes light up, in anticipation of an opportunity. And then i tell its a murder and enthusiasm goes slightly down and signs of dissapointment begin to appear.
And then i talk for five minutes or so, and it listens, growing more and more sceptical.
And then i tell the name of the man i killed, and its always Oluf Palme (look it up), i laugh out loud like Bwahahaha after saying the name and walk away.
I only do this in places with lots of cameras, eheheh.
Wouldn't reccomend to do it in third world shitholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:40PM
Grow the fuck up, little dipship.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:25PM
At least you didn't kill the old man. With a name like Gunnar, he deserved a lot of respect.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:41PM
You won't laugh so much when make yourself get detained by someone that don't find it as funny as you and politely but forcefully get sent to a psychiatric evaluation, and better don't try to argue or resist when the paramedics arrive.
I know first hand a prankster with a similar idiocy case and NEVER repeated. And btw, first world, top of the humans rights protection chart.
Keep playing,and don't forget to come back to tell your story. Good luck!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday March 21 2019, @11:47AM (13 children)
The article seems to boil down to carefully avoiding the phrase "plea bargaining".
So say you've been arrested and in the can for six months and you know the conviction rate is 90%+ and if you plea guilty (or admit to false confession to a lesser charge) then you'll get two years in the can but get credit for six months of pretrial and you'll get parole in six months so its all good because your sentence is already 50% over.
Or you can try to plead innocent to a much more severe charge and have 90%+ odds of getting like 20 years so your sentence only has 5% time served.
This seems to be EVERY "real crime" criminal justice story I've ever read.
For a really weird long format story about how things work, there's a book by the bro or cousin or whatever of one of those Army Ranger dudes who knocked over a US bank for cash before a deployment basically because they were bored and pumped up and were playing chicken with each other refusing to back down. A pretty wild story of that kids journey thru the justice system.
Don't forget its not just time in the can... its life long punishment in the USA. So better 100% odds of a minor charge than 90%+ odds of a much worse charge for the rest of your life. If they're both fake charges anyway, may as well take the lessor punishment.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:19PM (5 children)
Maybe 90 % of dependents who go to trial are guilty? That conviction rate does not mean there are too many convictions.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:29PM (3 children)
The fact that the US incarcerates a higher percentage of it's citizens than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in the world is a damned good indication that the conviction rates are too high.
The legalization of cannabis will put a dent in those numbers, briefly. Then, they'll come up with new stuff to charge black and brown men with, but they'll be sure to net enough whites for Equal Opportunity.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:24PM (1 child)
Assumes that there is not a higher rate of crime in the US rather than elsewhere in the world, or other valid statistical reason why we have a higher percentage of incarceration. (Which doesn't mean you're wrong, either). If we're magic-wand speculating, I'd suggest it is because we do everything possible to eliminate lower-end jobs such that there's less recourse to make a living if you're facing poverty.
The list is slightly apples-to-oranges, though. Louisiana, which seems to be the highest prison-per-100000 in the country has the same population as New Zealand. Minnesota has about the same population as Denmark.
Still and all "too high" is a question begging term. How much crime actually occurs to convictions made is a more apt number, but good luck nailing that jello to the wall.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:48PM
I, for one, will go with that assumption. Americans are no more evil than the citizens of any number of other countries. Hell, the Brits are the evilest mofos on earth, and they don't lock up as many as we do! ;^)
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @02:04PM
you mean profiting from seizure of rich people's stuff and the expectation that they can make bail?
there's a few ways the system profits--private prisons hold onto the undesirables and the people that can afford to pay fines or provide useful stuff will get the opporunity to contribute more of their riches to the system.
there's no accident in that an expensive lawyer can let a guy go free--there's a lot of cost to freedom.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:07PM
This is why they do the perp walk. Make them look guilty before the trial starts. "Why would we arrest them if they were not guilty?" leads quickly to "Why even bother having a trial?" Tried and convicted in the media, might as well take that plea bargain.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Interesting) by legont on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:32PM
Does not have to be a serious crime either. My friend just confessed to driving without driver license even though she had one. That was to avoid a more serious accusation. That was the deal offered and she took it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by legont on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:41PM (4 children)
The burning question is why jurors vote guilty. I'd never will, but I avoid jury duty successfully so far.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:38PM (3 children)
Well, I can't speak for all juries but I was on one and we voted guilty because of overwhelming evidence. We could find no reason for the cop who testified to want to frame the guy. The case hung partially on identify and we were confident it was the right guy.
Information was withheld during the trial. In the back of our minds we all probably wondered why he was going for a jury trial on a simple evasion case. Turns out, he had a long record that included child molestation and was desperate to avoid prison.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:56PM (2 children)
He may well have been guilty.
As for reasons that cops might lie: that's simple. Too many cops see their job as putting "the bad guys" in jail, irrespective of actual innocence and guilt in the specific case, while their definition of "the bad guys" is often only loosely connected to provable facts.
Remember, when thinking about cops lying: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. You did not know of any reason that the cop might lie, but that doesn't mean he/she didn't have reason to -- only that you did not hear of it.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Friday March 22 2019, @02:08AM (1 child)
I've been on multiple juries over the years, and without a doubt, cops lie. Even when they don't need to. They try to paint the picture that the defendant is a 'bad guy', they coordinate and rehearse their testimonies, and they make things up.
In three of the four cases we found the guys guilty (all these cases went for at least 5 work days). And only one had police testimony that was consistent and supported by the evidence. In the other three (even the two where we found the guys guilty based on overwhelming evidence), it was obvious that the cops were making things up in coordination with each other to 'put the nail in the coffin' so to speak. Fortunately, there was sufficient evidence in the most egregious cases that this was the right guy and he had done what was described on the list of charges. But, I was not impressed with the cops present in three out of the four cases.
In the case where we found the guy not guilty, the evidence actually pointed to the guy's innocence. Yet, there was one constable that added a line here and there to his testimony that very much seemed like it was intended to 'help out the prosecution'. Sadly, his testimony was contradicted by the evidence. The jury actually wrote a note to the judge mentioning this, and the judge (without giving the note to the barristers present) said something to the effect of "this is a matter that unfortunately can't be dealt with here". Unfortunate alright, I assume this judge had the same low opinion of (these) cops that we did, as he spent about half an hour making a summary that said everything bar outright telling us to find this guy not guilty. Luckily, we weren't idiots, and had already worked that out from the objective evidence that the prime witness had fabricated their story.
To the question, why would a cop make something up? Well, these cops seem to be sure the guy was at least guilty of something, and looked like they wanted to do their best to make sure the guy ended up behind bars. They didn't want to trust the jury verdict purely to the crown barrister's skill and the evidence provided, so they said things - some of which contradicted or at best didn't add up when looked at in the face of the actual evidence, and other things they would have had no way of knowing, but somehow 'knew' anyway.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 23 2019, @05:12PM
Most people are smart enough to avoid dealing with street con artist because they know they will be easily manipulated and their "smartness" would not help. Yet the same people believe they can outsmart professionally trained manipulators cops are. How could you possibly think you have a chance to know who is lying? You would not try to outsmart professionally trained KGB agent, would you?
The answer is that American population implicitly trusts authorities and typically rubber stamp accusations which explains sky high conviction rates. Not that the rest of free or otherwise civilized word is any better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:34PM
so, the article is true and pigs are shit working for the corporate overlords. ok
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:04PM
Crime industry is a model contradictor to justice.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:18PM (8 children)
Don't talk to the police [youtube.com]!
Most of the times you have absolutely no reason at all to talk to the police. It's that simple basic rule so difficult to understand or to remember?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:42PM
This is the one with the detective, right? Where he says he's "interviewed" thousands of people, and let _ONE_ or _TWO_ go because he believed them to be innocent?
What an absolute shit stain. It reinforces: Do NOT talk to the cops.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:44PM (2 children)
It may be difficult for you to act that rationally while you are being detained and bullied by the police to confess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:26PM
That's why the best option, if at all possible, is never be taken alive. Personally I'd rather be dead than a rape toy in prison.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:12PM
And sleep deprived until rational thought fails you. And thirsty, hungry, in need of the bathroom, locked away in a little room in the middle of a rat maze or identical looking corridors and constantly harangued by someone for hours on end telling you life as you know it is over unless you confess, etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Alfred on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:16PM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:27PM
Maybe because if you're on the receiving end of an ass whupping from someone else that you didn't provoke you'd be glad to see them?
Or when your neighbor decides to shoot his wife they're pretty good people to have around?
Or because if you've done nothing wrong the number of times you'll have contact with them is pretty minimal?
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:29PM (1 child)
There are four circumstances that come immediately to mind (in the USA):
Officer(s) interfering with you as you go about your business:
Officer issuing you a command (you need to understand what is reasonable):
Officer asking you about your compliance with instructions (you need to understand what is a legal instruction):
If you are arrested, the prior two, and:
Every one of these circumstances is a minefield if misunderstood. Therefore, one needs to understand the circumstances before anything happens. "I don't expect that", I hear people cry. Yes, that's the nature of the unexpected. It wasn't expected. If that means if one hasn't prepared for it, now the thing may well have escalated into some fairly deep trouble.
--
We should start referring to "age" as "levels."
So when you're LVL 80, you're awesome.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday March 22 2019, @04:35AM
The part that scares me is that the police can shoot you, illegally, and then you're dead. If you believe in the afterlife, you may have the pleasure of seeing the cop get away with it.
So it's not just knowing what you can or can not do legally, but also balancing that with not getting shot which may require you to compromise. "Don't talk to the police" doesn't help you in court if you're dead.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:21PM (4 children)
The word 'bargain' is not what you'll get if you're actually innocent.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:37PM (3 children)
FTFY
Once you've been arrested and charged, they (police and prosecutors) really like to make sure you go down for something, because otherwise they're vulnerable to legal challenge to the arrest and subsequent inconvenience, or worse.
That's how it actually works in the USA, anyway. If you quickly find yourself with several charges levied against you, you're almost certain to be in the chute and on your way to dealing with exactly that.
--
Co-worker: "Good morning!"
Me: "You need to seriously calm down."
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday March 22 2019, @03:17AM (2 children)
More to the point, where the DA is elected, the conviction rate determines if he'll get re-elected. In Los Angeles County the conviction rate is, last I paid attention, 97%. This is marketable come election day as "tough on crime".
The flipside is that if they don't think they can win the case, they won't make an arrest, let alone prosecute it. (In fact in my experience they won't even take a report.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday March 22 2019, @03:13PM (1 child)
Three things:
First, the police make arrests, the DA does not. The police often make arrests without any interaction with the prosecutor's office at all. Once this happens, the prosecutor's office will almost always support the arrest, because if they don't support the officers, the officers, in turn, will not support them.
Second, cops will very consistently support each other, often lying through their teeth, for the same reason: if one cop does not support another cop, then the other cops will not support them when they need it. This means that regardless of actual innocence, you may very well face multiple cops swearing under oath that you did X, when in fact, you did not do X.
Third, if an arrest is made by police officers at the request of the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office will be sure to have laid enough charges to see to it that they will almost certainly win on one of them — otherwise, as I already said, they can become vulnerable to consequences of their own.
The system as it stands today is corrupt at the most fundamental level. It's been this way for quite some time now.
--
The eyes are the windows to the soul.
Sunglasses are the window-shades.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday March 25 2019, @04:05PM
True; I was in a hurry and conflated a bunch of shit. But the system has been going this way long enough that the cops know what will and won't stick in court, and their raises and promotions depend on getting good busts that do stick. And that's always good for everyone's conviction stats. So if they know from experience something is not going to fly in court, why bother making the arrest? Makes for bad stats and everyone is unhappy with you.
The system needs to return to being wholly evidence-based, and dump this adversarial system where you can always get a conviction via plea bargain (which is also so much cheaper than a proper trial) that just begs for corruption.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:43PM
I can't see it either. Here is an Al Jazerra video posted 4 years ago on the same topic so probably not the one in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNVkMhlmoc0 [youtube.com]
This guy has been posting videos on interrogation techniques with real world examples, though most of the videos have been removed. They're pretty interesting but I find you have to check often and watch right away because the videos disappear quite quickly: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYwVxWpjeKFWwu8TML-Te9A/videos [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:12PM (1 child)
This principle is part of European "justice" system since Roman times. People tried to fight it with declarations of human rights and things like that but it didn't stick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:13PM
In Europe* you usually don't have to worry too much about talking to the police.
Even a confession without more evidence may not be considered incriminating enough.
Of course if you are/going to be detained or somehow reasonably considered a suspect, then the don't talk to the police common sense advice applies in full anyway.
* minus preBrexit UK.