Tornadoes--Inside and Out
It's one of those nights when the weather is so unsettled that it doesn't seem prudent to go to bed and leave the elements unobserved. We're under a tornado watch for the second night in a row. Tomorrow (Saturday) promises more of the same. And Sunday and Monday.
Last night the tornadoes stayed west of here and were on the ground mostly in unpopulated areas. They merited scant mention in today's newspaper.
When the weather is this dramatic, I always think of praying first for protection for ourselves, but I can't ever quit there. For our family, or church friends, our neighbors, for all the people depending on crops for income, and even for those poor souls in forsaken territory whose lone set of farm buildings doesn't stand much chance in the path of tornadic winds.
I've been reading the chapter on interrogation in the book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), and my emotions on that subject began to churn again into a veritable inner tornado. It has to do with how investigators for law enforcement routinely lie to people to coerce them into making confessions that make life easy for investigators--never mind the havoc they leave behind in the victims of interrogation, or the innocent people who are punished as a result of "confessions" arising from this kind of questioning. Why is it that everyone in a court case must swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, while many of the people most directly responsible for accumulating evidence to bring a person to trial routinely violate truth-telling standards? It's all laid out in the manual used for training investigators.
The fact that most responsible citizens cultivate respect for law enforcement personnel makes the dishonesty seem even more despicable. Why should citizens routinely have to maintain an unhealthy degree of suspicion when they're in a conversation with an officer of the law?
My first exposure to this lack of straightforwardness was a mild case. When my brother Marcus was a suspect in an incident of vandalism, Anthony, another brother of ours, was questioned by police. He was told that if he didn't tell what he knew, things could be bad for him. They specifically asked him if Marcus had done what he was suspected of doing. Anthony said no, based on what Marcus had told him. It turned out that Marcus was lying, and, when Anthony found out, he was very worried that the trouble the interrogator had hinted at would rain down on his own head. The reality is that Anthony had absolutely nothing to do with the vandalism, and the investigator's threat carried no legal weight. But to a young boy, this threat seemed real and frightening. I think it was entirely uncalled for. Anthony was already accustomed to telling the truth and did not need to be threatened to do so. I wondered then what standards investigators operate by.
A number of years later our family learned to know the family of Jeff, an investigator for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. Jeff was in our home one evening, and we had a nice visit while his son and my husband and others talked of electricity or rockets or some such thing--a 4H project. He was handsome, personable, and, even off duty, quite professional. I toyed with the idea of asking him about what ethics he observes in doing his job, but I didn't do it. I think it would have seemed too intrusive. Later I asked his wife how her husband got started in this line of work. She told me that he had always had a strong motivation for helping other people. Even in high school he sought out opportunities to serve others. He chose a career in law enforcement because of its potential for being of service. Knowing Jeff helped quiet my indignation about my brother's experience more than 20 years ago. Only occasionally, when I heard about information that law enforcement gained by trickery did the issue bother me.
One such incident was when $300.00 had been stolen. The detective who interviewed the suspect routinely referred to the amount stolen as $400.00. According to testimony in court, the suspect slipped up and referred to the stolen amount as $300.00. The information was used to convict her. This seems like a fairly harmless use of untruthful investigative techniques. But it does nothing to restore my faith in the integrity of the process.
Far more alarming is that this compromise on the part of investigators often leads to a chain reaction of compromises that may involve ignoring exonerating evidence, asking questions in such a way that children or other highly suggestible individuals feel prompted to produce what the investigator wants, prolonging the questioning session long past the point of exhaustion, and editing responses and presenting in court only the sound bites that are most likely to lead to a conviction.
In one example from the book Mistakes. . . , an investigator who talked to a murder suspect asked him, "If you had killed her, how would you have done it?" The suspect, who was innocent, thought he was helping law enforcement figure out who the real killer might be by giving the hypothetical situation his best shot. In court, his answer was repeated verbatim, without the prompting question. What was merely spinning a yarn in the suspect's mind sounded like a confession when presented in court.
My sister once talked for a long time with an investigator, in the presence of a lawyer representing her side of the conflict. (It happened while she was working at FMH and involved a case against that institution.) She was a little confused by what seemed like a very repetitive pattern--the same questions. Finally, "her" lawyer interrupted and said, "She's already answered that question three times." The investigator backed off.
All this leads me to believe that talking to anyone in law enforcement is best done very cautiously. Certainly resolving to always tell the truth is primary. Also, asking for the Lord's direction in such a situation is important. In addition, the author of Mistakes. . . makes it very clear that people ought to feel very free to interrupt the questioner at any point to utter four words I want a lawyer and then refuse to answer any further questions until that request is granted.
I hope never to be in trouble with the law, but if an investigator ever finds me, even if he's as charming as Jeff, I plan to be on guard.
Last night the tornadoes stayed west of here and were on the ground mostly in unpopulated areas. They merited scant mention in today's newspaper.
When the weather is this dramatic, I always think of praying first for protection for ourselves, but I can't ever quit there. For our family, or church friends, our neighbors, for all the people depending on crops for income, and even for those poor souls in forsaken territory whose lone set of farm buildings doesn't stand much chance in the path of tornadic winds.
I've been reading the chapter on interrogation in the book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), and my emotions on that subject began to churn again into a veritable inner tornado. It has to do with how investigators for law enforcement routinely lie to people to coerce them into making confessions that make life easy for investigators--never mind the havoc they leave behind in the victims of interrogation, or the innocent people who are punished as a result of "confessions" arising from this kind of questioning. Why is it that everyone in a court case must swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, while many of the people most directly responsible for accumulating evidence to bring a person to trial routinely violate truth-telling standards? It's all laid out in the manual used for training investigators.
The fact that most responsible citizens cultivate respect for law enforcement personnel makes the dishonesty seem even more despicable. Why should citizens routinely have to maintain an unhealthy degree of suspicion when they're in a conversation with an officer of the law?
My first exposure to this lack of straightforwardness was a mild case. When my brother Marcus was a suspect in an incident of vandalism, Anthony, another brother of ours, was questioned by police. He was told that if he didn't tell what he knew, things could be bad for him. They specifically asked him if Marcus had done what he was suspected of doing. Anthony said no, based on what Marcus had told him. It turned out that Marcus was lying, and, when Anthony found out, he was very worried that the trouble the interrogator had hinted at would rain down on his own head. The reality is that Anthony had absolutely nothing to do with the vandalism, and the investigator's threat carried no legal weight. But to a young boy, this threat seemed real and frightening. I think it was entirely uncalled for. Anthony was already accustomed to telling the truth and did not need to be threatened to do so. I wondered then what standards investigators operate by.
A number of years later our family learned to know the family of Jeff, an investigator for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. Jeff was in our home one evening, and we had a nice visit while his son and my husband and others talked of electricity or rockets or some such thing--a 4H project. He was handsome, personable, and, even off duty, quite professional. I toyed with the idea of asking him about what ethics he observes in doing his job, but I didn't do it. I think it would have seemed too intrusive. Later I asked his wife how her husband got started in this line of work. She told me that he had always had a strong motivation for helping other people. Even in high school he sought out opportunities to serve others. He chose a career in law enforcement because of its potential for being of service. Knowing Jeff helped quiet my indignation about my brother's experience more than 20 years ago. Only occasionally, when I heard about information that law enforcement gained by trickery did the issue bother me.
One such incident was when $300.00 had been stolen. The detective who interviewed the suspect routinely referred to the amount stolen as $400.00. According to testimony in court, the suspect slipped up and referred to the stolen amount as $300.00. The information was used to convict her. This seems like a fairly harmless use of untruthful investigative techniques. But it does nothing to restore my faith in the integrity of the process.
Far more alarming is that this compromise on the part of investigators often leads to a chain reaction of compromises that may involve ignoring exonerating evidence, asking questions in such a way that children or other highly suggestible individuals feel prompted to produce what the investigator wants, prolonging the questioning session long past the point of exhaustion, and editing responses and presenting in court only the sound bites that are most likely to lead to a conviction.
In one example from the book Mistakes. . . , an investigator who talked to a murder suspect asked him, "If you had killed her, how would you have done it?" The suspect, who was innocent, thought he was helping law enforcement figure out who the real killer might be by giving the hypothetical situation his best shot. In court, his answer was repeated verbatim, without the prompting question. What was merely spinning a yarn in the suspect's mind sounded like a confession when presented in court.
My sister once talked for a long time with an investigator, in the presence of a lawyer representing her side of the conflict. (It happened while she was working at FMH and involved a case against that institution.) She was a little confused by what seemed like a very repetitive pattern--the same questions. Finally, "her" lawyer interrupted and said, "She's already answered that question three times." The investigator backed off.
All this leads me to believe that talking to anyone in law enforcement is best done very cautiously. Certainly resolving to always tell the truth is primary. Also, asking for the Lord's direction in such a situation is important. In addition, the author of Mistakes. . . makes it very clear that people ought to feel very free to interrupt the questioner at any point to utter four words I want a lawyer and then refuse to answer any further questions until that request is granted.
I hope never to be in trouble with the law, but if an investigator ever finds me, even if he's as charming as Jeff, I plan to be on guard.
posted by Mrs. I at
8:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home