Should cops lie to kids?
2023-06-09
Dear friend,
Honesty is one of those things I'm willing to stick with even when it's inconvenient. That's how I know it's a core value.
Where it gets interesting is when we're tested.
Government can be a useful thing. It's the way modern-day humans come together to cooperate on big projects. I love roads. I love GPS. I love a fair judicial system. I would love a comprehensive approach to our energy future.
Why do only 2% of Americans express trust in their government? (See The Wally Principle.) Why is it so hard to tackle certain policy and fiscal issues like climate change and the national debt?
I pin a lot of the blame on institutionalized lying at the federal level dating from the 1940s onward. It has rotted out trust in all levels of government.
I don't think we're stuck here. Trust can be healed. And it may turn out to be one of the most effective ways to work together more effectively on our biggest challenges.
I was proud to vote "Yes" this spring on S.6, An act relating to law enforcement interrogation policies. The bill passed Vermont's House and Senate on voice votes.
I will be voting "Yes" on S.6 again this week, and I hope we muster the votes to override the Governor's veto of the bill.
I support S.6 because I don't think cops should lie to the people they are sworn to protect.
The bill helps Vermont take an important step in that direction. In cases of individuals under 22 and in police custody, S.6 makes a confession obtained by deception or coercion inadmissible in court.
Law enforcement tactics for interviewing or interrogating crime suspects have changed significantly over the years. Police have moved away from techniques that once included the use physical harm and coercion.
The intent of this update to our policies is to:
--Prevent false confessions and wrongful convictions,
--Utilize evidence-based interrogation (or interviewing) practices, and
--Improve trust between communities and law enforcement.
Data shows that deception by law enforcement can lead to false confessions and wrongful convictions, and that false confessions are more common for youth when deception is used.
Deception is defined as knowingly communicating false facts about evidence ("We have your DNA on the scene"), providing unauthorized statements regarding leniency ("we'll let you off easy"), or knowingly misrepresenting the accuracy of the facts or the law.
The bill mandates the Vermont Criminal Justice Council to develop, adopt and enforce a statewide, evidence-based model interrogation policy to limit and eventually eliminate the use of deception for people of all ages. (Evidence-based means using what works and improving practices, as opposed to doing it "how it's always been done.")
That would apply to all law enforcement agencies and constables in VT. This model interrogation policy would be complete by January 1, 2024.
All law enforcement agencies would be required to be implementing and enforcing this model policy by April 1, 2024 in order to access state grants or other state financial assistance.
There are rare cases and investigations where "targeted deception," or suggestive language that is close to the definition of deception, is used by law enforcement. Examples are sexual abuse and child abuse cases where there is little to no evidence or witnesses. S.6 does not take any tools off the table for an ethical investigator. Evidence obtained in this manner could be used in court if a very high bar is met -- that the prosecution can prove under the high standard of clear and convincing evidence, that the statement was both voluntary and reliable, and that the use of deception did not create a substantial risk that the person might falsely incriminate themselves.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from law enforcement, including the Association of Chiefs of Police, the Department of Public Safety, and the Attorney General’s Office.
The opposition of these groups to S.6 was quoted by Governor Phil Scott in his veto message.
They asked to limit the protections to only those 18 and under. I'm not convinced by this objection. I would like to see these protections reach more Vermonters, not less. I don't think a 20- or 21-year-old is much better equipped than an 18-year-old to keep their wits and not tell an investigator what they want to hear, even if it's not what happened.
Law enforcement asserted that “targeted deceptive questioning” can be important in investigations of sexual assaults that happen on college campuses and child sexual abuse cases.
However, the hypothetical scenarios that they described to the committee didn't go beyond the "targeted deception" mentioned above.
And moreover, new investigative methods have evolved -- some based on building trust in telling public safety officers the full truth.
Another objection is that S.6 is redundant with what Scott refers to as "already robust constitutional protections."
Fair point. The fewer laws, the better. If the Constitution already covers a topic, let's not mess with it.
However, I'm not convinced. The Vermont State Police are doing a great job. I only wish the Westminster barracks were closer to southern Windham County.
Unfortunately, it is also our duty to look for places to heal harm and prevent malfeasance. We do know that cases occur where manipulation or threats lead to false confessions, and that a jury will value a false confession against the defendant's self-interest over DNA evidence. Folks who are already marginalized and disadvantaged and disenfranchised are hit worse by this.
In this case, "we're already doing it" isn't good enough for me. I will vote "Yes" on S.6 for more robust and clear protections for our youth, and the promise of further repair of trust in the interrogative process in the future.
What's your take on honesty in the public sector? How can our government improve?
***
***
"The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed," said writer William Gibson in 1993.
On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. However, the Union didn't win the war until April 9, 1865, and doggone it, the western Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi did not surrender until June 2, 1865.
Thus it didn't end up being till June 19, 1865 that Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston to take back over Texas for the United States. One of his first acts was to say:
The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.
Good news! You're free!
Happy Juneteenth!
The recent establishment of Juneteenth as a federal holiday could be seen as a justice long overdue to the freed slaves -- labor rights and a day off.
Granger's proclamation isn't over yet.
The next sentence in Granger's proclamation establishes the former slaves as "hired labor" and plantation owners as "employers." (I wonder if "wage slave" was used in a first draft?)
Granger then says, "The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere."
"You're free. Alright, now get back to work!"
Juneteenth has been celebrated for some since 1866, and for others since... today. Do you observe? I'd love to hear how.
P.S. I now have a "digest" option, as well as other newsletter preferences, that readers can take advantage of. To fine-tune the topics you hear from me on, check your email preferences.