10 ms·

Given that people who know the law, can plead the fifth and avoid being interrogated at all, why doesn't the law just ban interrogation of the accused altogethe

Given that people who know the law, can plead the fifth and avoid being interrogated at all, why doesn't the law just ban interrogation of the accused altogether? It creates a divide between people who have access to good lawyers vs those who don't and fall prey to such coercion.

giancarlostoro 7y ago
It really should ban interrogation without a lawyer but also if someone waives their rights they should have a mandatory discussion with a lawyer. If they waived their rights before a lawyer even showed up thats a whole lot of sketchiness going on.
lostmyoldone 7y ago
Swedish criminal law implement something that could be considered a partial application of that idea, but instead of outlawing interrogation, any admission of guilt is only to be considered as part of evidence in a case. Thus when the courts do their work correctly, it's almost impossible to be convicted on your admissions alone, especially for more serious crimes. There are however instances where this has still happened, indicating that maybe confeso of guilt should not be admissible as evidence at all, though material evidence found through interrogation probably should.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  " any admission of guilt is only to be considered as part of evidence in a case." This makes sense to me. Someone confessing to a crime is certainly a strong indicator they did it but it's not 100%.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    In Sweden any evidence is admissible, and it's up to the judge(s) to decide if and how to weigh it.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Have there been any cases of someone being exonerated for lack of evidence despite pleading to be arrested for their bloody cannibalistic rape spree?
  - Pinus 7y ago
    Since Sweden has already been mentioned in this subthread... The case of Sture Bergwall / Thomas Quick comes quite close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall
  - johncolanduoni 7y ago
    Optimizing your justice system for bloody cannibalistic rape sprees seems unwise.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s true in the US too.
- jopsen 7y ago
  Can the police lie in Sweden? Afaik they aren't allowed to in Denmark... Sure, you can tell a man ready to jump off a ledge anything. But in an interrogation, the police can't lie, or try to extract a confession. There are so many differences.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  I assume swedish courts use juries? Regardless of the technical rules about how confessions should be treated, a jury will always overvalue a confession. The same applies to eyewitness testimony, which is basically useless but juries accept it as undeniable truth. The game of prosecution is not "prove the accused is guilty". The game is "convince these random people that the accused is guilty". The later is a decent approximation of the former but I wish we had something better.
techbio 7y ago
> plead the fifth and avoid being interrogated at all, why doesn't the law just ban interrogation of the accused altogether? A lot of these interrogations are of "persons of interest" who haven't (yet) been accused or charged, perhaps having been alarmed by the police telling them that their silence is evidence of guilt?
simonh 7y ago
Such interrogations can often occur before someone is accused. At that point, they're just a potential witness and may not be in custody and therefore might not even have been 'Mirandized'. As I understand it anyway, I'm a furriner. We don't have anything like Miranda in the UK, but of course the same ethical issues apply.
- jon-wood 7y ago
  > We don't have anything like Miranda in the UK, but of course the same ethical issues apply. We definitely do, the wording is just a bit different to the US version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#England_and_W...
  - grkvlt 7y ago
    And note that within the UK there are some big differences! The wiki link in the parent comment is for the England and Wales version of the police statement made at time of arrest, which points out that: > You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. But in Scotland, which has a slightly different (and obviously, of course, much better) legal system, the police statement is: > You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted and may be used in evidence. The difference is due to the fact that under Scots Law, no adverse inference can be drawn based on a persons silence. I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that they would recommend getting arrested in Scotland, rather than England, if you absolutely must commit crimes in the UK...
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Ooh, I've never thought about it before, how do police chases work at the border. Presumably Scottish police or English police have the right to arrest following a border chase, or do they have to detain and get assistance for the actual arrest. Reminds me of a trope from old USAmerican movies where criminals are trying to reach the state line because the police aren't allowed to cross it.
pdkl95 7y ago
How accustomed to (ab-)using the coercieve power of interrogation do you have to be to think arresting a public defender when they insisted on representing their client during questioning was a good idea? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg
jeremyjh 7y ago
I'm not sure how police would do their jobs if they could never ask anyone questions without a lawyer present. This would mean for example, that before giving a statement as a witness to a traffic accident resulting in minor injury, that I would need to obtain representation. Of course this is not the kind of interrogation you are talking about, but what would be the bright line rule that separates adversarial interrogation (even for someone not yet arrested or charged) versus just "asking a few questions" ?
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  You could always go with "Nothing you say can be used against you without declaration of intent (ie 'we are arresting you for ___') and representation"

giancarlostoro 7y ago

It really should ban interrogation without a lawyer but also if someone waives their rights they should have a mandatory discussion with a lawyer. If they waived their rights before a lawyer even showed up thats a whole lot of sketchiness going on.

lostmyoldone 7y ago

Swedish criminal law implement something that could be considered a partial application of that idea, but instead of outlawing interrogation, any admission of guilt is only to be considered as part of evidence in a case. Thus when the courts do their work correctly, it's almost impossible to be convicted on your admissions alone, especially for more serious crimes. There are however instances where this has still happened, indicating that maybe confeso of guilt should not be admissible as evidence at all, though material evidence found through interrogation probably should.

maxxxxx 7y ago
" any admission of guilt is only to be considered as part of evidence in a case." This makes sense to me. Someone confessing to a crime is certainly a strong indicator they did it but it's not 100%.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  In Sweden any evidence is admissible, and it's up to the judge(s) to decide if and how to weigh it.
soulofmischief 7y ago
Have there been any cases of someone being exonerated for lack of evidence despite pleading to be arrested for their bloody cannibalistic rape spree?
- Pinus 7y ago
  Since Sweden has already been mentioned in this subthread... The case of Sture Bergwall / Thomas Quick comes quite close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall
- johncolanduoni 7y ago
  Optimizing your justice system for bloody cannibalistic rape sprees seems unwise.
rayiner 7y ago
That’s true in the US too.
jopsen 7y ago
Can the police lie in Sweden? Afaik they aren't allowed to in Denmark... Sure, you can tell a man ready to jump off a ledge anything. But in an interrogation, the police can't lie, or try to extract a confession. There are so many differences.
dahfizz 7y ago
I assume swedish courts use juries? Regardless of the technical rules about how confessions should be treated, a jury will always overvalue a confession. The same applies to eyewitness testimony, which is basically useless but juries accept it as undeniable truth. The game of prosecution is not "prove the accused is guilty". The game is "convince these random people that the accused is guilty". The later is a decent approximation of the former but I wish we had something better.

techbio 7y ago

> plead the fifth and avoid being interrogated at all, why doesn't the law just ban interrogation of the accused altogether? A lot of these interrogations are of "persons of interest" who haven't (yet) been accused or charged, perhaps having been alarmed by the police telling them that their silence is evidence of guilt?

simonh 7y ago

Such interrogations can often occur before someone is accused. At that point, they're just a potential witness and may not be in custody and therefore might not even have been 'Mirandized'. As I understand it anyway, I'm a furriner. We don't have anything like Miranda in the UK, but of course the same ethical issues apply.

jon-wood 7y ago
> We don't have anything like Miranda in the UK, but of course the same ethical issues apply. We definitely do, the wording is just a bit different to the US version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#England_and_W...
- grkvlt 7y ago
  And note that within the UK there are some big differences! The wiki link in the parent comment is for the England and Wales version of the police statement made at time of arrest, which points out that: > You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. But in Scotland, which has a slightly different (and obviously, of course, much better) legal system, the police statement is: > You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted and may be used in evidence. The difference is due to the fact that under Scots Law, no adverse inference can be drawn based on a persons silence. I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that they would recommend getting arrested in Scotland, rather than England, if you absolutely must commit crimes in the UK...
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Ooh, I've never thought about it before, how do police chases work at the border. Presumably Scottish police or English police have the right to arrest following a border chase, or do they have to detain and get assistance for the actual arrest. Reminds me of a trope from old USAmerican movies where criminals are trying to reach the state line because the police aren't allowed to cross it.

pdkl95 7y ago

How accustomed to (ab-)using the coercieve power of interrogation do you have to be to think arresting a public defender when they insisted on representing their client during questioning was a good idea? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg

jeremyjh 7y ago

I'm not sure how police would do their jobs if they could never ask anyone questions without a lawyer present. This would mean for example, that before giving a statement as a witness to a traffic accident resulting in minor injury, that I would need to obtain representation. Of course this is not the kind of interrogation you are talking about, but what would be the bright line rule that separates adversarial interrogation (even for someone not yet arrested or charged) versus just "asking a few questions" ?

mrguyorama 7y ago
You could always go with "Nothing you say can be used against you without declaration of intent (ie 'we are arresting you for ___') and representation"