Do you Agree or Disagree with the Legality of Police to Lie?

Below is the topic we had to write about: Pease view the “The Confessions” video located:http://www(dot)pbs(dot)org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/ When interrogating suspected criminals, police are allowed to make accusation s, lie about or make up evidence, yell at the suspects or get in their faces. Consider what you viewed in the film, and answer BOTH of the following: Discussion Questions: 1. Do you agree or disagree with the legality of police to lie when questioning a potential criminal? Why or why not? 2. What do you think police should and should not be allowed to do during an interrogation?

Provide very specific reason s and examples from the film to support your answer Now for what the writer needs to do: Review above and then read the response to the topic above (below) and tell if you agree with the students or disagree, what you like/disliked about it, and if you have anything to add. Student's response: I do not agree with the legality of police to lie to a suspect, nor should they threaten, yell, coerce, manipulate, cause sleep deprivation, or deprive suspects of bathroom breaks and/or food. The police should not abuse their power, nor should they be allowed to question a suspect for more than one hour—period, because it is inhumane, badgering, disrespectful and unconstitutional.

I think they should turn on their cameras the moment they step into the room to tape every spoken word and every action on both sides. Suspects should be read their Miranda rights at the very beginning and the police should honor those rights the very second they hear, “I want an attorney.” Interrogations should be fact gathering sessions and not blame sessions. Police detectives should do what their name implies—investigate—follow the evidence and facts, not incriminate, dominate and indoctrinate.

None of the accused men had criminal records and therefore had no real experience with how police operate. They were young and scared and they had the mistaken belief that because they were innocent, they would answer questions to help police find answers and then be on their merry way. They were wrong. It was appalling to see how police abused them for at least 8 hours straight—anyone would crack under that kind of pressure—all they wanted to do was get out of there and be with their families. I was thrilled to see that Det.

Ford got indicted for extortion. I don’t know how he can sleep at night knowing he put away innocent young men whose whole lives were before them. He stole their birthright. He stole their souls. I am also extremely upset at the attorney who wanted $22,000 to represent Joe Dick but then did nothing to help him. Instead he told him it was up to him to tell the truth. He refused to be with him during questioning and/or interrogations. He is an arrogant, narrow-minded little man who shouldn’t be practicing law. He was paid to defend—not believe the prosecution. He had an obligation to protect and defend his client whether he believed him to be guilty or innocent. It is up to the judge and jury to decide his innocence or guilt. How dare he make himself judge and jury and leave a naïve, young man on his own without proper defense or legal coaching. It took attorneys working pro bono—for free—to free innocent men—something the original attorneys, collecting thousands of dollars, failed to do. less