It's always a good idea to ask for a lawyer (and to demand that the embassy of your home country gets informed).
However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
Also remember outside the US, there's limited to no protection against repeated prosecution. Only 50-ish countries have protections against "double jeopardy" written into their constitutions and there's lots of exclusions.
Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
I think these are just slightly different approaches to the same goals of carceral malfeasance. You don't need to try someone more than once if you can torture a confession out of them. You don't need to torture a confession out of someone if you can try them as many times as you want.
Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
Italy does have protection from repeated prosecution as a fundamental right (not least due to the directly binding charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
As a general rule, research that before you go anywhere. In Canada, for example, suspects have the right not to make any statements. In China, suspects have the right not to answer “irrelevant questions.”
It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black.
And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.
You should stop taking your information from movies and media headlines. You are going to get people in trouble!
> I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent.
Why is that? Seems like you're going to get a lot of natives in trouble with that kind of advice. Never heard lawyers saying that in criminal Common Law countries for any minority.
The last time there were any statistics collected, an indigenous person in my province had a higher chance of completing a stint in a federal penitentiary than of completing an undergraduate degree. That’s what I’m talking about. You could use Google for three minutes instead of being so rude. You should try it.
You're making an emotional argument by bringing other unrelated social issues. How possibly incriminating yourself by talking to police, especially as a vulnerable minority, is going to help?
I can't imagine a place where it wouldn't hold true. You may or may not get the lawyer you request but a police interview is never gonna be about anything other than getting you to say something that will get you convicted of one or many crimes.
Example: in France if you get caught with cannabis and get to the stage where you get into a police interview, it's the police that recommends to the public prosecutor what to do next. Usually the public prosecutor follows the recommendations of the police.
So you can end up having no troubles, in exchange of giving them useful information (e.g. to track down the dealer) even if it's incriminating you. It's informal, but it exists. It's a gamble (though there is an official status as well: "repenti")
That's supposed to be how it works in America as well, but realistically what happens is they overcharge and then leverage your fear about the unreliability of the jury process to get you to confess regardless of guilt. I don't know how to determine whether that's similar with French police but I think you're giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt in assuming that this only works in the most innocent way possible.
One of the classic videos on the subject by Law Professor (and former criminal defense attorney) James Duane, accompanied by a police officer that concurs:
I watch this video at least once a year, and make my immediate family do the same.
Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule.
As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important.
It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you.
I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less.
Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.
My dad was a police officer and I grew up in the age of AIDS hysteria. Without any hyperbole, my dad spent more time/words drilling in how to protect myself from police than from AIDS. Granted, I had about as much sex appeal as a paper bag full of day old vomit so maybe that was more about probability of facing risk than actual risk. :)
It was a dark realization for me about some of the ways that America is corrupt despite branding/veneer of beautiful things like freedom, prosperity, christianity.
IMO A just nation who wanted to live out those^^ values would limit the rights of police (who are not judge or jury), and do the following:
1. Anything said before a lawyer is present is inadmissable
2. The officer's word is not considered superior to the defendent's
3. There are strictly enforced rights police must uphold until you're proven guilty. This includes basic comfort (think food, water, temperature regulation, sleep, access to daylight, contact with support people/friends/family)
4. You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change or if it does then all prior investigation is inadmissable evidence)
5. Police are not allowed to lie, or otherwise be deceptive
6. Police are liable for negative impacts they cause, including loss of work, loss of opportunity, disruptions of family etc. Acquittal should begin the process of recompense for losses.
I think in attempts to be "tough on crime" or "back the blue" America has lost it's sense of right and wrong / morality.
There are plenty of things we take for granted in American criminal justice that aren't standard in Europe. For example: you do not necessarily get exclusion of inappropriately obtained evidence, or a right not to incriminate yourself. There's an amazing article about how criminal justice works in France that followed "Anatomy of a Fall" --- just the idea that the prosecutor doesn't literally work for the judge is not a universal idea!
What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.
In the US inappropriately obtained evidence, failure to follow chain of custody, etc is waived by the judges and allowed under 'good faith' (the court assumes good faith on the police's part even though the police failed to follow the process/rules/law/requirements and therefor the court doesn't enforce compliance requirements).
Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.
I mean that's nice and all, but you're comparing the US to countries that literally don't enshrine that protection at all. It is not a universal principle of criminal justice that you have the right not to be confronted with evidence obtained improperly. Again: compare this to France, which doesn't even have an adversarial criminal justice system --- they run an inquisitorial system, with cooperating judges and prosecutors.
None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).
I'm comparing the US to a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you can determine the outcome from the rules. In the US, you can't. In the US warrant rules don't apply. Chain of custody rules don't apply. Instead the judge extending 'good faith' to law enforcement when they fail to follow the rules applies.
A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.
Again, this assumes that the protections implied by search warrants in the United States are a universal principle of criminal justice, and they are not.
No, the assumption is that search warrant protections are part of the American law system (they are) but that the legal requirements around them are routinely ignored in America (they are) with arm waving and the term 'good faith', making the American system not a predictable system that follows it's rules, but one that is bent by judges around police 'failure' to follow the rules.
The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.
This to me reads as an argument that no protections are better than protections applied inconsistently. Maybe on a message board, but if I was a defendant, it seems like the decision between the two would be easy to make.
Marginalised groups have argued for removal of protections because of inconsistent application. If the application is inconsistent the marginalised are the ones who suffer from that inconsistency. Those with the power to fix the underlying issues tend to be beneficiaries of that inconsistency, giving them little incentive to make changes. Frequently they don't even perceive there to be a problem because while inconsistent application is theoretically possible, their experience suggests that it just doesn't happen that often.
So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?
Not if the inconsistency means the protection never really applied to you but the protection for others acted as hindrance to amending the system to providing a consistent protection.
We have by far the highest rate of police-on-civilian violence among developed countries. Our peers on this metric are nations like angola, honduras, mali, colombia. It's not a bias.
We certainly have some excellent procedural innovations in our court system. But we absolutely do have other problems that are much worse than those faced within the carceral systems of other countries at a similar level of wealth and development.
I was responding to the argument made in the parent comment, not making a general case for the US being superior or in any way rebutting anything in the article itself.
I don't think that's responsive to my comment. What I'm getting at is -- it is reasonable for police to use self-defense. So I'd expect higher police-on-civilian violence rates in places with higher civilian-on-police violence rates.
I don't accept the point that it's generally acceptable for police to use violence in self defense. It is easy to imagine the point where safety to the public demands an individual cop accept personal danger. This is widely understood, it is all over the messaging about the inherent heroism of policing. If they want the credit for this danger, they have to face the risk itself.
But anyway yeah we're way off track and your original point really seemed to be something like "but maybe the civilians deserve it" so I have not taken it seriously at any point and will continue not to.
I'd love to see a source for your claims. I know they are at least untrue or misleading for the Netherlands.
The Netherlands offers the right to remain silent. All European counties I am familiar offer something similar. On the European level, this right has recently been affirmed. [1]
In the Netherlands, improperly obtained evidence is indeed not excluded in the Netherlands. Improperly obtaining evidence is a separate crime that does not taint the case for the initial crime, and is prosecuted separately. However, improperly handled evidence (e.g. broken chain of custody) is normally excluded.
In practice, improperly obtained evidence is not a major problem, it will in itself not help convict an innocent person. Improperly handled evidence however, can easily lead to an innocent person being convicted.
You can verify my claims in 2 minutes on Google. I don't have the Netherlands on my list; I haven't looked. It is not my claim that every European country lacks every procedural protection in the US system, or for that matter that the US has every procedural protection from every European state.
> You can verify my claims in 2 minutes on Google.
I'm sure you're right, but presumably this means it would take you significantly less than two minutes to offer some concrete sources that would help enlighten kvdveer and anyone else who might be interested.
It's a fun conversation! I've got a little list of US criminal justice protections and where they do and don't apply in Europe. For example: the UK doesn't have strict double jeopardy protections. They used to! They recently decided they didn't like them, and rolled them back.
It would be a fun thread, and I think a little eye-opening. But nobody is reading this thread at this point so it's not worth sinking a lot of effort in here.
Well you, kvdveer, I and likely at least a few other people are reading it, and I hope we're not beneath significantly less than two minutes of effort.
a lot of the 'oddness' of american 'policing' gets cleared up when considering one of the main origin stories of policing in America.
Across the "american south"/the american slaveholding states, police departments were "founded" when municipalities printed metal stars ('sheriff's badges') and handed them to the _existing_ slave patrols. (plenty of other police departments beyond the american south started in the same way, but to appreciate the energy of it all, the place it started matters.)
these deputized slave patrols were given badges, presumably budgets, and the message: "keep on doing what you're doing, which is, among other things preventing slave rebellions and retaining 'human capital'.".
It's not easy for that 15% of the people, keeping the other 85% of the population from walking away or rebelling.
Oh, the book "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane is very short, less than 100 pages, and is worth the read. It rounds to "do not talk to the police", and 'viewing the police as adversarial agents is the only correct view, both in their own words and the words of their victims'.
I wouldn't want evidence to automatically become "inadmissible" because of something the police have done: they could accidentally-on-purpose do something that makes the evidence that would have proved me innocent "inadmissible". Also, organised criminals could bribe the police to make the evidence that would have proved them guilty "inadmissible".
If there's one right I'd like to see added it's this: the right to a trial without a jury. I'll admit it may have something to do with my social class and education, and where I live, but I trust a judge to make the right decision more than I trust a jury.
Inadmissibility of government evidence due to government violations of the accused’s constitutional rights in its collection never works against the accused.
> You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change
The end result of that would logically have to be that everyone police talk to at all times are a "subject" because it's perfectly reasonable that someone who is questioned about what they know about a crime might end up having had some part in it.
Yes. And if the police are not allowed to be deceptive about your role in the investigation, then it becomes clear what you should to in response. (STFU, essentially).
This is a nice sentiment and all, but the police & prosecutors are already on the losing side of a technological and societal arms race.
The reasons police use these tactics is because in many jurisdictions, getting a guilty verdict is borderline impossible, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of direct evidence. Defense counsels have become experts in shit-slinging to ensure that juries are as confused as possible going into deliberations. "Jury of peers" means it's somewhere between possible and probable to get one or many jurors sympathetic to the defendant, especially in cities. Jurors attempting to appear "unbiased" frequently just choose the middle ground option between the prosecution and defense, without actually taking a look at the evidence.
The current system is extraordinarily flawed and leads to these outcomes where all sides are forced to use immoral tactics to get their desired outcome, because that's the only realistic shot they've got to accomplish their goals. The correct response is not to further kneecap one side of the conflict.
The thing where the cops are allowed to lie to people in the USA in order to get confessions out of them is so wild to me.
There's a section in here about that: "Presentations of False Evidence"
"At times, American police will overcome a suspect’s denials by presenting supposedly incontrovertible evidence of guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. [...]
In much of the world, police are not permitted to deceive suspects in this way."
Not even just to get a confession. Police can stop you on the street for no reason and lie to your face telling you that you are required to hand over your ID or allow them to search you and if you refuse you'd be committing a crime and will go to jail. If you don't know your rights you can end up giving them permission to violate them.
You can't even trust police to tell you when you're doing something illegal.
1. Remain calm. do not escalate the encouter. Police are often violent, and are substance abusers. Being right will not keep you alive.
2. You have the right to remain silent, use it.
3. You have a right to a lawyer, use it.
4. You have the right to refuse searches. Tell them “I do not consent to searches” it may nto stop them but it helps your case.
5. Understand that police cany legally lie to you. See #2
6. Ask if you are free to go or it you are being detained.
7. Record the encounter or take notes. You might need that later.
8. Dont let them in your home. Do not even crack the door without a judicial warrant.
56 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadHowever, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
Yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility
Police use torture even here in the US.
Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black.
And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.
> I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent.
Why is that? Seems like you're going to get a lot of natives in trouble with that kind of advice. Never heard lawyers saying that in criminal Common Law countries for any minority.
The last time there were any statistics collected, an indigenous person in my province had a higher chance of completing a stint in a federal penitentiary than of completing an undergraduate degree. That’s what I’m talking about. You could use Google for three minutes instead of being so rude. You should try it.
Have a good one.
So you can end up having no troubles, in exchange of giving them useful information (e.g. to track down the dealer) even if it's incriminating you. It's informal, but it exists. It's a gamble (though there is an official status as well: "repenti")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
And accompanying paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule.
As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important.
It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you.
I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less.
Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.
IMO A just nation who wanted to live out those^^ values would limit the rights of police (who are not judge or jury), and do the following:
1. Anything said before a lawyer is present is inadmissable
2. The officer's word is not considered superior to the defendent's
3. There are strictly enforced rights police must uphold until you're proven guilty. This includes basic comfort (think food, water, temperature regulation, sleep, access to daylight, contact with support people/friends/family)
4. You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change or if it does then all prior investigation is inadmissable evidence)
5. Police are not allowed to lie, or otherwise be deceptive
6. Police are liable for negative impacts they cause, including loss of work, loss of opportunity, disruptions of family etc. Acquittal should begin the process of recompense for losses.
I think in attempts to be "tough on crime" or "back the blue" America has lost it's sense of right and wrong / morality.
What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.
Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.
None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).
A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.
The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.
So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?
We certainly have some excellent procedural innovations in our court system. But we absolutely do have other problems that are much worse than those faced within the carceral systems of other countries at a similar level of wealth and development.
But anyway yeah we're way off track and your original point really seemed to be something like "but maybe the civilians deserve it" so I have not taken it seriously at any point and will continue not to.
The Netherlands offers the right to remain silent. All European counties I am familiar offer something similar. On the European level, this right has recently been affirmed. [1]
In the Netherlands, improperly obtained evidence is indeed not excluded in the Netherlands. Improperly obtaining evidence is a separate crime that does not taint the case for the initial crime, and is prosecuted separately. However, improperly handled evidence (e.g. broken chain of custody) is normally excluded.
In practice, improperly obtained evidence is not a major problem, it will in itself not help convict an innocent person. Improperly handled evidence however, can easily lead to an innocent person being convicted.
[1] https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/european-court-justi...
I'm sure you're right, but presumably this means it would take you significantly less than two minutes to offer some concrete sources that would help enlighten kvdveer and anyone else who might be interested.
It would be a fun thread, and I think a little eye-opening. But nobody is reading this thread at this point so it's not worth sinking a lot of effort in here.
Across the "american south"/the american slaveholding states, police departments were "founded" when municipalities printed metal stars ('sheriff's badges') and handed them to the _existing_ slave patrols. (plenty of other police departments beyond the american south started in the same way, but to appreciate the energy of it all, the place it started matters.)
these deputized slave patrols were given badges, presumably budgets, and the message: "keep on doing what you're doing, which is, among other things preventing slave rebellions and retaining 'human capital'.".
It's not easy for that 15% of the people, keeping the other 85% of the population from walking away or rebelling.
Oh, the book "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane is very short, less than 100 pages, and is worth the read. It rounds to "do not talk to the police", and 'viewing the police as adversarial agents is the only correct view, both in their own words and the words of their victims'.
If there's one right I'd like to see added it's this: the right to a trial without a jury. I'll admit it may have something to do with my social class and education, and where I live, but I trust a judge to make the right decision more than I trust a jury.
Already have the problem with bribery, this literally does not impact that.
The end result of that would logically have to be that everyone police talk to at all times are a "subject" because it's perfectly reasonable that someone who is questioned about what they know about a crime might end up having had some part in it.
The reasons police use these tactics is because in many jurisdictions, getting a guilty verdict is borderline impossible, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of direct evidence. Defense counsels have become experts in shit-slinging to ensure that juries are as confused as possible going into deliberations. "Jury of peers" means it's somewhere between possible and probable to get one or many jurors sympathetic to the defendant, especially in cities. Jurors attempting to appear "unbiased" frequently just choose the middle ground option between the prosecution and defense, without actually taking a look at the evidence.
The current system is extraordinarily flawed and leads to these outcomes where all sides are forced to use immoral tactics to get their desired outcome, because that's the only realistic shot they've got to accomplish their goals. The correct response is not to further kneecap one side of the conflict.
There's a section in here about that: "Presentations of False Evidence"
"At times, American police will overcome a suspect’s denials by presenting supposedly incontrovertible evidence of guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. [...] In much of the world, police are not permitted to deceive suspects in this way."
You can't even trust police to tell you when you're doing something illegal.