I'm still pro-law enforcement. That hasn't changed. That will no doubt disappoint and offend some people. I don't really care. The officers depicted in MAM probably aren't even representative of all the officers in Manitowoc County much less the entire country. As a Conservative, I realize what LEOs do for society, and value and respect that in a general sense. And unless things change pretty drastically that will continue to be the case. So despite watching MAM, I don't think all police are manipulating and fabricating evidence to frame people, because the officers depicted in MAM have what most police officers do not. Motive. The Manitowoc County Sherrif's Department had a reason to do this to Steven. 36 million reasons to be precise. And that's why you see them so egregiously and repeatedly engaging in, and excusing, conflicts of interest. But that's simply not the case with the vast majority of police investigations. So I feel like this was, objectively, a rather atypical incident.
I do feel like the culture of camaraderie that exists among police facilitated Stephen's framing. Officers and prosecutors are inclined to believe each other and take the word of their colleagues over the word of suspects. And this is not without good cause, mind you, because suspects lie to them all the time. This naturally results in officers adopting a belief that their colleagues are the only honest party and perhaps even above reproach, which makes them far more susceptible to deception from other officers than it does suspects, toward which they have a cynical disposition. This tendency to accept the account of another officer without scrutiny is on conspicuous display in the testimony of Deputy Daniel Kucharski from neighboring Calumet County. Despite the circumstances under which the key to Teresa's car was found, Deputy Kucharski conveys no suspicion whatsoever, and it seems blatantly inconceivable to him it may have been planted. So I'm not saying they were all involved, but merely making the observation the culture of camaraderie among LEOs made framing Stephen significantly easier, and perhaps made officers like Deputy Kucharski complicit in an inadvertent and ancillary way.
It's simply inexcusable that one of the officers that was not supposed to be there because he was being sued by Avery, who was also the same officer that filed Stephen's blood evidence from his prior wrongful conviction, discovered some of the most damning blood evidence under highly suspicious circumstances. It's equally inexcusable that the prosecutor apparently had no problem with that. Again, the culture of camaraderie, i.e., that we (law enforcement) are all on the same team, seemingly utterly eclipsed objectivity. Police officers, prosecutors, judges, etc., are supposed to be seekers of truth (regardless of where it leads). And it seems instead, much as in politics, many of them have a partisan us versus them mentality leading some to sacrifice truth upon the alter of faction.
Of particular concern to me, and what this contribution is primarily about, is the culture of deception that seemingly pervades police interrogation practices. And for more information on that you can watch Northwestern Pritzker School of Law's video on Brendan Dassey.
I feel I need to point out I don't necessarily agree with these people's politics. I'd not be surprised at all if we agreed on nothing else whatsoever. But as the old saying goes even broken clocks are right on occasion. And as an intellectually honest person I feel compelled to acknowledge when that's the case. As a Conservative I even defended Obama in some (exceedingly rare) instances; because the guy was right; because honesty demanded admitting such. And the heading on this page, "principle over party," isn't a joke. It's obvious these people aren't just making this all up. The internet is replete with videos of police interrogations that blatantly employ the methods they're describing (often with profound efficacy).
That being said one of the things that always really bothered me about MAM, just as much as Brendan Dassey's confession itself, was the apparent complete inability (or refusal) on the part of the detectives to recognize any of what seemed abundant red flags. As I watched it I personally felt like nothing this kid was saying was reliable. To perfectly blunt the kid seemed retarded. And the indifference to that exhibited by the detectives interrogating him bothered me.
Assuming Laura Nirider's account is accurate, an investigator for Stephen Avery's defense uncovered that Brendan had an extensive history of social, psychological, and intellectual impairment. Which immediately begs the question, how did the detectives not uncover that also? I can only arrive at two conclusions when seeking to answer that question. Either they didn't because they're incompetent. Or they did, and didn't care. And I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, because the notion that these two seemingly intelligent grown men didn't realize something's wrong with Brendan, seems to me quite preposterous. I mean, you can tell this kid's not right just by talking to him. Brendan's answers are so blantantly coaxed out of him, and constitute the verbal equivalent of throwing darts while blindfolded, it's comical at times. At one point after an investigator has repeatedly failed to get the desired answer, he just outright feeds Brendan the desired answer, inducing the audience in the video above to laugh out loud. Because it's farcical. It's farcical, that detectives leading someone blatantly guessing because he doesn't know the correct answer until he gives them the correct answer, is considered acceptable. It's something more befitting a sketch comedy skit of a police interrogation than an actual police interrogation.
You hear the officers telling Brendan things like, "I'll go to bat for you," if he responds in a certain way during his interrogation. As if they, his accusers who would testify against him if he confessed, were going to defend him if he adopted the narrative they wanted. I think there's something very wrong, morally, with leading a mentally challenged kid (or anyone really) to believe things will be better for them if they confess to a murder. Confessing to a murder is pretty much never, ever, ever going to make your circumstances better. But Brendan, being blatantly mentally challenged, doesn't seem cognizant of that at all. When I watched it the first time, and Brendan asked if he was going to make it back to school in time for 6th period because he had a project, after having just admitted to a murder, I was kind of in awe of his naivete. I remember thinking to myself, if I'm the detective, everything this kid has told us is worthless. He has no idea what's going on. But obviously, having a profound personal interest in the outcome, law enforcement saw it very differently. Brendan's credulity was their salvation.
Another example of a conviction predicated upon a dubious confession, and that eyewitness testimony can be absolutely worthless, is the Ryan Ferguson case. Ryan Ferguson went to prison for years, as a result of a confession on the part of a friend who implicated him, and who was likewise fed information by investigators.
The justification for such interrogation practices is no less disturbing than the practices themselves. I think it should go without saying, that there's a fundamental problem with the police lying to people to get what they want, and I'm quite uncomfortable with police deception having become as accepted as it apparently has. I find the rationale for that acceptance unsettling for reasons both theological and secular. I feel like it's an obvious and apodictic truth, or at least should be, that the difference between good and bad people is the unwillingness of the former to engage in deceit to get what they want, and the lack of compunction to that end on the part of the latter. Basically, if "bad" people are bad because they're willing to lie to get outcomes they prefer, then what is the difference between bad people and police officers who do the same?
Now I'm going to proleptically address what I know will be the response to that question. "Because they're the police." Basically, because they have the authority and power of government behind them, have uniforms and badges, etc., it's okay when they do it. They're lying for the "right" reasons. And the problem with that notion is it's the same justification used by every oppressive and totalitarian government ever. It's not wrong when we do it because we're the government, or proxies of such, has been the unofficial mantra of every tyrannical and autocratic regime in human history. Either lying is wrong, or it's not, folks. And if it's not, and police (i.e., the good guys) doing it means that it's not, then how can it be a crime to lie to the police? Others will claim the police are better because they only lie, which is a minor or lesser sin than stealing, or rape, or murder, etc. But that is merely another common specious argument used by immoral people to validate their immorality. A relativist is always going to devise a standard that sanctions his own vices, and establishes his virtue upon not doing "worse" things that other people do. The liar is a good person in his own eyes because he's not a thief. The thief is a good person in his own eyes because he's not a rapist. The rapist deems his behavior acceptable because he's not a murderer. Et cetera. This sort of reasoning is only ever employed to validate unethical behavior. Never to mitigate or eliminate it.
It frankly baffles me how any judge, or anyone for that matter, could not see the inherent moral and historical problems inherent to this point of view. How much can you blur the line between criminals and agents of justice, exactly, before that line becomes hard to discern if not effaced altogether? Is getting legitimate confessions, which I readily concede happens all the time through these techniques, worth Brendan Dassey and who knows how many others like him being incarcerated for crimes they probably didn't commit? Crimes there's no actual evidence they committed? If the end justifies the means, and the efficacy in procuring a confession is all that matters (whether its genuine or not), why not just waterboard suspects? Because there seems to be a dangerous notion that prevails among law enforcement that procuring a confession legitimizes the methods used to get it. There also seems to be a prevailing notion that, since most of the confessions procured are genuine, that it makes the ones that aren't worth it. Again, waterboarding would no doubt be as effective in procuring confessions from the guilty as the innocent. And since the police, more often than not suspect the legitimately guilty party, it could just as legitimately be argued the innocents waterboarded would likewise just be acceptable collateral damage.
I think it should also go without saying the notion someone must be charged, even when it conflicts with or is not substantiated by the evidence, is inherently problematic. The desire to attribute blame without fail, often for personal or political reasons, when compelling evidence is lacking obviously significantly increases the likelihood of an innocent person being charged and convicted of a crime they didn't commit. It's simply an unfortunate reality of life, that in a country of this size and population, there are going to be incidents occasionally in which evidence is insufficient to charge anyone. And in those incidents it needs to be that way, as opposed to seeking convictions based upon dubious confessions, or highly circumstantial evidence.
Ultimately, regardless of your party affiliation, Steven Drizin and Laura Nirider are raising questions that need to be asked. Relying on government and its proxies to be ethical, and operate within confines that respect individual liberty entirely on their own, is simply not good enough. The Bill of Rights is an irrefutable and codified rebuttal to that notion. Some will no doubt claim I sound like a leftist espousing the "it should be banned if it saves only one life" rhetoric of anti-gunners. But that's patently ridiculous. The Founders considered the right to bear arms to be integral to a free society, as evinced by it being explicitly codified in the U.S. Constitution. It's indisputable as such. By contrast the right for constabularies to lie to people to procure confessions, is not, and frankly doesn't exist. It's a completely apples and oranges comparison.
The belief that it's worth sending Brendan Dassey to prison for life, because these techniques keep many more legitimately guilty people off the streets, is far more dangerous than the alternative. Why? Because government has murdered exponentially more people than Brendan Dassey ever has or could. And I've been making that observation for years and years. Even if Brendan Dassey is guilty as sin, if he can't be convicted on the physical evidence, he should walk. Because a government that can throw people in prison based upon confessions procured through coercion and deceit is infinitely more dangerous to society.
But it seems Americans have forgotten the lessons of the European monarchy our Founders escaped. Indeed it seems they've forgotten sanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment