In 2008, a video recording of a law school lecture on the 5th amendment went viral on YouTube. The jist of the lecture was that talking to the police, for any reason, was inherently a bad idea. As per this recent interview with the same professor, his message was this:
He argues that this is important because, per him, the US legal system is stacked against the accused. Again, per his interview,His argument, which he's since expanded into a new book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is that even if you haven't committed a crime, it's dangerous to tell the police any information. You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime.
In the interview, he expounds on this argument in part by claiming that this is because of the role that the police often play in assisting the prosecution. He writes,These include a proliferation of poorly written laws that make nearly anything a potential crime, rules that allow prosecutors to cherry-pick only the most damning parts of police interrogations at trials, and a little-known 2013 Supreme Court ruling allowing prosecutors to tell juries that defendants had invoked the Fifth Amendment—in other words, telling an officer you are making use of your right to remain silent could wind up being used as evidence against you. For that reason, Duane thinks that you shouldn't even tell the police that you are refusing to talk. Your safest course, he says, is to ask in no uncertain terms for a lawyer, and keep on asking until the police stop talking to you.
Anyway, to the point of the post: What do you all as law enforcement officers think about this argument? Do you feel it is true, in part or on the whole, or do you think he is wrong? Can you think of any examples in your career where an otherwise innocent person was jammed up because of their statements to the police? Conversely, can you think of any examples of someone who was guilty who was able to go free/enabled a guilty party to go free because of their unwillingness to cooperate?Any police officer will tell you, "We're here to get to the truth." But the reality is that over time police officers inevitably come to see themselves as part of the prosecutor's team. They work with the prosecutors, they testify for the prosecutors, they meet with the prosecutors. There are other Western democracies that have legal systems mostly like ours but place significant parts of the criminal investigation in the hands and under the direct supervision of judges and magistrates who really are neutral.
I am specifically interested in the latter as the lawyer in question claims that he is not worried that disseminating his advice will enable criminals to go free because, as per him, "[criminals have] been arrested and prosecuted a couple of times already, and they've been through the system, and they've talked to a lawyer and already learned what the book says."
He also says that the feedback he has gotten from current and former LEOs has been largely positive. I will leave that assertion up to you all to interpret....
PS: In your responses, please don't assume I know anything at all about law/the criminal justice system. I considered law school for a hot 5 minutes in college and then ran far far away in the opposite direction...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Nephrology
