Why Police Lie Under Oath

Because they may believe that the end justifies the means.

Quote from nobama : The one-sided biased op-ed writer was probably paid to write her "piece". That is difference #1.

And pigs police do their job for free?

In fact, part of the point of the article is to demonstrate the financial incentive that exists for them to lie.

The only difference is within your imagination.

Quote : The The one-sided biased op-ed writer is trying to further her "career". That is difference #2.

And pigs police do not attempt to further their own careers? The more they lie, the better they look, the better their chances for promotion.

Another imaginary difference.

Quote : The one-sided biased op-ed writer has a book to sell. That is difference #3.

And no former cop has ever written a book or otherwise drawn on his/her leo experience to make additional money? No moonlighting on the side?

Quote : Three strikes - she's out.

Then you better be following right behind...

Quote : Are you seriously claiming that it is not a fact that "defendants will not hesitate to lie under oath in a court of law"?

It's a fact only to the extent that "police will not hesitate to lie under oath in a court of law."

Some do, some don't. If it's okay for you to make such over-generalized claims and claim that they're factual, then certainly it must be okay for others to do as well...

Quote : Are you seriously claiming that it is not a fact that "such lies are encouraged by their liars lawyers?

Encouraging (or even permitting) known perjury is grounds for disbarment. Again, does it happen? I'm sure it does. But it's also a fact that the frequency is unknown to either of us, despite our anecdotal evidence.

Quote : Just the facts, ma'am.

Nope. Just more platitudes & deflection as usual.

Quote : Do you deny that the op-ed writer is extremely biased?

The writer is merely as biased as you are.

Quote from smegalicious : And pigs police do their job for free? And pigs police do not attempt to further their own careers? And no former cop has ever written a book or otherwise drawn on his/her leo experience to make additional money?

I may have misread your post, it sounded like you were comparing the difference between the biased writer of the op-ed piece and a former LEO.

Quote from smegalicious : Some do, some don't. If it's okay for you to make such over-generalized claims and claim that they're factual, then certainly it must be okay for others to do as well...

Just the facts, ma'am. Some do.

Quote from smegalicious : Encouraging (or even permitting) known perjury is grounds for disbarment. Again, does it happen? I'm sure it does. But it's also a fact that the frequency is unknown to either of us, despite our anecdotal evidence.

It goes both ways and the entire point here is that the one-sided biased writer of the op-ed article focused only on the rare instances of LEO's perjuring themselves, giving the false impression to the uninformed reader that a large majority of LEO's are guilty of perjury and completely ignored the fact that liars lawyers and their guilty clients are just as capable of lying in court, and certainly more often.

Quote from smegalicious : The writer is merely as biased as you are.

And you are not?

Quote from nobama : I may have misread your post, it sounded like you were comparing the difference between the biased writer of the op-ed piece and a former LEO.

Former or current is not a determinative factor wrt such differences.

At one point, former leos were paid for their work, thereby creating the same bias as the writer. At one point, they were concerned about furthering their careers, just like the writer.

Quote : Just the facts, ma'am. Some do.

And some lawyers & some defendants do. Yet, you seldom - if ever - include that qualifier when pushing your agenda of guilty until proven innocent.

Quote : It goes both ways and the entire point here is that the one-sided biased writer of the op-ed article focused only on the rare instances of LEO's perjuring themselves, giving the false impression to the uninformed reader that a large majority of LEO's are guilty of perjury and completely ignored the fact that liars lawyers and their guilty clients are just as capable of lying in court, and certainly more often.

Too bad you have abosultely no evidence for any of your claims of rarity of frequency.

The writer was writing about cops perjuring themselves. S/he was under no obligation to simultaneously write about defendants perjuring themselves in order to appease you.

It's too bad you can't focus a fraction of your vigor wrt railing against lawyers toward cleaning your own house.

Quote : And you are not?

I'm not the one making claims I can't prove wrt the frequency of any of the parties involved engaging in such actions.

Do you believe it's a good thing for the govt to create financial incentives for the police to lie under oath by, for example, tieing monies received to number of arrests and/or convictions?

Quote from roughnready : QUESTION: Should police get more leeway in court given the challenges they face in maintaining law and order in today's society or should we continue to insist on honesty above all else in the criminal justice system -- even if it means fewer arrests?

Since there are laws that basically enforce tougher penalties for violence against a law enforcement agent, there should be similar laws against law enforcement agents violating the law. Lying under oath should result in immediate termination along with 1-5 years in jail. Prosecutoral misconduct should be treated similarly.

Criminals will always lie and cheat, etc., but if the cops and the prosecutors don't take the higher ground then justice means nothing.