Guilt is orthogonal to due process. What if the kid hadn't committed the murder but was duped into making incriminating statements anyway? Furthermore, considering testimony given while under the influence is ridiculous.
> "What if the kid hadn't committed the murder but was duped into making incriminating statements anyway?"
Then maybe it would make a better example for discussions like this. As it stands, that anecdote is little more than "the police are good at their jobs and they caught a murderer which is unambiguously good for everybody, but what if they were instead using their skills for something bad?"
> "Furthermore, considering testimony given while under the influence is ridiculous."
I'm sorry but expecting cops to never talk to drunk people is just absurd. There are plenty of valid objections to modern policing, but this isn't one of them.
As long as a witch is burned who cares how they did it? Cops lying and deceiving is fundamentally wrong. Don’t pretend that it’s required for police to get convictions. There are other ways.
Comparing the arrest of a murder to witch hunting is absurd. You know that's absurd, you don't need me to explain it to you.
> "Cops lying"
You already admitted the cops in your example didn't lie. They're guilty only of having a calm demeanor when interrogating a murder suspect, which for some reason you consider morally abhorrent.
I went through ur comment history and I have to say that I respect you.
It isn’t meant to directly compare this to witch hunting. It’s a case of people overlooking brutality because witches are bad anyway right? There are zillions of examples of this. It’s the concept that’s important. Saying that the technique of lying is ok because it gets rid or murderers is wrong especially in light of the fact that there are other ways to do it.
And yes, there is a grey area where interrogators don’t outright lie but are still highly deceptive. I don’t care about the grey area, I just care that police are allowed to outright lie. That is not grey. The example that I illustrated reveals how sinister the police can be. It is more emotionally stirring than mechanical lying. But the interrogator did reveal her title and so whatever. Seriously twisted still. But making outright lying routine is wrong. I don’t want to live in a world where police tell flat out lies to people. That is why we have Miranda rights. Under your logic there should be no reading of Miranda rights, allowing the police to tell the suspect literally anything like “if you don’t confess we will do x” or “you have to tell us something or you’ll be locked up forever” or whatever. Miranda rights exist for an extremely good reason. And stopping outright lying is a continuation of the spirit of Miranda rights.
And the prevailing sympathy on HN for defendants is orthogonal to due process as well. There is no violation of due process here, without regard to the number of commenters who just don't like it.
