The New York Times published an op-ed by Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” entitled Why Cops Lie. The Times has touched this subject numerous times, as have I, even bringing the term testilying to the public.
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t post about something unless I can add some value to it, but this op-ed is so good on its own that despite my inability to add anything worthwhile, I feel compelled to spread the word as far as possible. This is the conclusion:
The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us.
And, no, I’m not crazy for thinking so.
Read how she got there. And, no, Michelle, you are most assuredly not crazy for thinking so.
It’s necessary that this reality continue to be pounded into the minds of a denying public until either the practice stops or people realize that this is how the system works.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t think this problem is fixable. There are just too many incentives to lie, and too many gutless judges who will continue to ignore blatant perjury for the sake of keeping their jobs.
.
Oh, the problem is fixable; not today, but in the near future. And it involves technology. I’m not sure society would like such a solution because most everyone seems to value the ability to lie at will . . .
But it can be solved; don’t think it can’t. We put a man on the moon, fer cryin’ out loud . . .
.
The Peter Keane Op-ed that Alexander mentions is especially damning. It’s not every day that you hear a former police commissioner pan his former profession as a coterie of habitual liars.
While insurmountable on its face, there are ways to fix the problem. You could change the rules of evidence to compel trial courts to throw out police testimony regarding traffic stops whenever an officer’s dashboard camera is magically “turned off” during the incident. You could add a corroboration requirement for police testimony where it is offered as the sole basis of a conviction. You could allow defense attorneys to offer expert testimony on police perjury, as opposed to the current practice, which is to throw it out on relevance grounds. D.A.’s could start actually prosecuting police officers for when they lie on the stand. Not that I’m in a rush to throw more people in jail, but the culture of impunity is part of the problem. As Alexander and Keane note, one of the reasons police lie on the stand is because they know they’ll get away with it.
Of course, police unions and D.A.’s offices would lose their collective minds over these changes. So I guess we’ll have to settle for something like Assembly Bill A01642, which would require prosecutors to disclose pre-trial discovery materials to the defense, without a motion, before or at arraignment. Liberalized disclosure won’t stop cops from lying on the stand, but you never know when a piece of Brady or Rosario material related to police testimony might pop up during Article 240 disclosures. Something’s better than nothing, I suppose.
Great suggestions, LTMC.
I would only add that legalizing victimless crimes would, imo, reduce the “need” for police to lie as often as they do.
What is the value of the opinion of someone who doesn’t use their name? That said, what does a crime being “victimless” have to do with the issue that more general overcriminalization does not, or is it just a favored agenda you’re trying to slip in here?
Cops frequently lie about being solicited by an alleged prostitute. Prostitution is a victimless crime. Legalize it, and cops would not be involved with investigating or arresting anyone for it, and if it isn’t a crime, perjury on their part would be unnecessary, since they wouldn’t be arresting anyone for it.
Ah, so prostitution is just your personal pet peeve. Got it.
.
Scott, I wouldn’t exactly express it like you did. Rather, I would say he appears to have a fetish for prostitutes and is against laws making them criminals – but he is certainly not peeved at the prostitutes themselves . . .
Me?? I think prostitution is integral to a productive and well-lubed economy . . .
.
Perhaps he wants to keep them as pets? If so, that would be very wrong. They are human beings and should be treated with dignity and respect.
.
Yes, I too believe it involves heavy petting, at a minimum, and likely much, much more . . .
.