since cops are alowed to lie and they admit?
953302
...The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969).  The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand.  Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined.  This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave.  Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not.  For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can be pursuaded into continuing the interrogation.  \n\nDuring interrogations, police who use this tactic may lie about the facts of a case.  For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not.  The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect.  In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape.  In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case.  During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin, had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime.  The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officer’s false statement.  The Court determined that the criminal defendant’s confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness.  Id.  \n\nPolice officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception.  In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendant’s fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victim’s checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook.  The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession.  Id.  at 258.  Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement.  Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible.  Id., at 259.  \n\nIn order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated.  Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996).  Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspect’s fear of confessing.  In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened.  The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder.
1121711
There's not a good, solid reason for this.\n\nBut basically, it's like getting your first official response on record that you are going to respond truthfully.  Then later if it is found that you haven't, perjury offenses can be brought against you on the grounds that you were sworn in to tell the truth.\n\nThink of it as you publicly acknowledging that you are required to tell the truth.  It doesn't matter if you're lying or not at this point.  The fact that you are stating it for the record is recognizing that you are consciously aware of what you're about to be held accountable for.\n\nit might be silly, but it's necessary.
976077
I do not think that would be a very good idea. It is not worth lying because a lie is worse that not having a high education level or such! I myself do not know how far they look into those type of things but if they catch you just say you accidentally made a mistake!
1102267
Cops are trained to use intimidation tactics in order to obtain a confession.  Once you are read your rights and agree to talk, then everything is pretty much fair game. \n\nEven if you are innocent (which differs from being not-guilty), it is rarely advantageous to talk to the police if you are being, or could be charged with a crime. When stopped, ask if this is a custodial stop or informational.  You are under no obligation to talk to an officer, or remain at a scene with an officer unless you are being legally detained (which would constitute a custodial stop).  \n\nCops are rated on the number of arrests they make.  If they are a detective, and make few arrests, then they can count on losing that prime job in quick order.
132383
Those cops who abuse their authority are pigs. Otherwise, I have no problem with the police.
495497
You wouldn't be lieing if it was the truth in the first place, but if you lied in the first place then you'd be lieing. But the lie about the truth was a lie and so they may not believe that the truth about the lie about the truth was true or not, because you did lie before.
1025666
The police honestly think that they are above the law and \ncan therefore break it with impunity
328466
not a good one people tend to lie
290898
Trying to get a compulsive liar to stop lying is like trying to perform the heimlich maneuver on a mountain goat.  It's a big mess, potentially dangerous, and in the end...best left up to the professionals.
305605
you can...but sometimes social pressures makes you want to lie.
1162916
It's not necessarily lying, but stretching the truth or omitting things.\n\nIt just comes with the job.
137127
It would seem to pose a dilemma, however, in my opinion I am tempted to believe them up until the time that I catch them telling the truth and which will eventually happen if one engages the liar into a lengthy discussion.\nWith the proper question posed at a particular time within the discourse the truth will 'blurt.'\nA question such as "Do you want to be treated to a free steak dinner on me?" \nHope this does it. Jose
645309
i believe your a liar. of course i would/wouldn't believe them. i mean, if i know them well, i could tell they're lieing, but if the person is telling the truth then the person wouldn't be a liar. if its a good liar then it's hard to say unless you really know them, but if it's a bad liar then u can tell they are lieing. if a liar sayed they were a liar then, she/he would be telling the truth, which wouldn't make them a liar at all. but if a truthful person said it, then they would be telling a lie, because they don't lie. so it would be called a ," triar" a person how both lies and says the truth. and if they werea triar and said it, then they would be saying a lith which is both the lie and the truth. what a random question.
829827
Just what it says...if your are willing to lie to someone...you must hate them...to lie is to be deceitful
575609
because they are liars
489438
some people have nothing exciting to say about them selves,or project a scene simply to get in ladies pants.others say littel and simply leave thingsto an imagination.\ni have no reason to lie and simply state what it is to an extent.\n depends on the person,frankly i wouldnt go through all the bs of covering one lie with anotehr and another like my ex did.\ni simply dont bother.take it or leave it
910985
no not unless asked by the court.\nIf asked by the court and you lie, then you may be charged with perjury also.\nThats a big one!