I'm a fan of a show called Murder Shift / The Shift. It follows real homicide detectives investigating and attempting to solve murders in and around Indianapolis. You get different detectives (usually in pairs), they all have slightly different style for investigations and interviews. You occasionally also see other law enforcement like US Marshals working with them.
Last episode I saw got me thinking about this. It is important that Police have options, however it is more important still that they have principles of policing that they can follow, like simple rules that would work under pressure.
So for example is it OK to use the the line "If you don't tell the truth, I'll bury you"? Or "If you don't start talking, bury you"? What about during an arrest "If you don't f*****g cooperate, I'll bury you"?
Some may be clear to you, some may be more ambiguous. Come up with your own examples to analyse. The ingredient of duress are either a threat or delivering on a threat in order to influence testimony. Some might argue that threat without good reason is enough, to cause duress.
I want to differentiate this from using language that indicates that they intend to act on a statement, becuase there is a an imminent threat, as this is not to do with influencing testimony but for self-defense.
I should point out "bury you" type statements aren't that alien to some policing jurisdictions. I actually think in most cases the officer saying doesn't see it as duress and it is the fault of their training, however that doesn't mean it isn't crossing the line.
Of course intent is important. The intent it not so much that they will carry out the threat (although if they did that would be clear), if is more the understanding that the subject could believe it to be true, and therefore effective form of cohesion.
The other thing I notice in this shows is how infrequent the people being interviewed, have legal representation. Whereas it is almost a default in the UK that they must be offered it, and 9/10 there is a lawyer in the room at least at this level of alleged crime.
The reason why I think is important is:
1. Presumption of innocence.
2. Even if it is clear cut case, such a threat or action could cause the case to collapse.
3. You want the police to be able not just enforce the law, but follow it without ambiguity.
That is why I think it is imperative that the police standards be higher than the law. This doesn't mean the aggressive tactics can't be used within reason, it mean that the action follows principle.
It would be good if anyone with legal background could contribute.
11 Nov 2015, 4:02 pm
