On the Strange State of Acting with Evidence-Based Authority in The United States
On the Strange State of Acting with Evidence-Based Authority in The United States
In general:
Police scrape the bottom of the evidence barrel by attempting to uncover anything that can be seen on the surface as a suspects telling a lie.
But, it should not be:
Matthew 5:34-37 - "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Asking the same, repeated questions is like taking an oath - it's wildly weighted to giving false positives. If you wear someone down, they truly might reveal what they wanted to hide, but those who don't want to hide might be caught up in the semantic trickery that works in the mind of the questioner. Likewise, an oath is not reliable, because the oath-taker has no power to truly ensure the oath, even when that oath concerns what is said in even the immediate future. Pressing someone to swear they are telling the truth is evil, according to Master Jesus Christ.
Interrogation rooms are evidence of a systematic attempt to undermine that which the State has no authority over and which all police have given significant energy to affirm that they don't have authority over. Freedom of speech and non-speech is not a privilege of the State. Once the interrogation room is replaced with simple questions and answers by willing witnesses, other lines of investigation might become more accessible to the studious police officer.
For people of particular authority, especially political:
Police squint and say that obvious evidence is only 99 percent certain, and so it can't be relied upon in court, because of all those pesky defense attorneys and laws that are over-balanced to the defendant's favor.
But, it should not be:
I saw an article on the front page of the paper, above the fold. It said that the Prosecutor ordered the Elwood police to stop arresting the mayor's son for drinking and driving! What an abrogation of responsibility - what a decisive piece of evidence - what a collusion between the citizen-run police and elected officials to systematically overlook potentially violent crime! Systematic collusion often occurs by squinting at multiple lines of evidence of crimes that have many victims, such as political or business crimes. Also, crimes within the police force often result in a coverup that takes the form of a suspension instead of the extreme sentence with which that crime is punished in the general population.
Therefore:
These mechanisms undermine the police force in its primary function and it aids and abets a class system that is based on fear of the abnormal use of authority by those business executives and politicians. This strange use of authority is then reflected in the police, themselves - even though they are nominally a citizens' force - that attacks citizens with trickery and coercion while hamstringing their ability to carry out duty.
And it's not only done by the police, though it can be seen clearly in that pivotal interface on the line of public authority, but it's also heavily used in Congress, where coercions of other members' votes with both false accusations of personal intentionalities and pre-judging a congressperson's ability to interact in internal mechanisms such as committees are leveraged along with the suggestion that these internal mechanisms - which are used to bring up legal specifications before Congress - are more important and more powerful than the vote on what is brought forward there.
Straightness of responsibility and authority can make the country run significantly smoother than wicked lusts for extra-authority power over people.