What data of mine is that, which needs backing up?
To gently help you with your attempt to appeal to science , in the vain hope that you aren't tossing word salad.
Again, people have a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney. Two rights that they should ALWAYS exercise.
Coercing confessions is literally how law enforcement gets any confession. If someone confesses, its not up to the cops as to whether or not the confession is true. It is then up to a court. Cops don't convict anyone.
If a suspect messes up and confesses to something that they did not do, then it is up to a jury to exonerate them.
But the suspect is not supposed to forgo their Miranda rights in the first place. Not doing so makes things much better for them.
Literally an attorney is the best and front line legal protection for all peoplle guilty and innocent. The right to one exists.
You want to legally protect people from making self-incriminating false confessions. Cops are not going to be the vehicle for that protection. Again, see the suspect's right to an attorney.
Do you have data for every allowable and disallowable practice in the legal code?
No one is going to concede that procedure, nor anything else in the legal system, requires data to justify itself. Law is a practice.
But if pressed, as many consultants that any municiplaity could afford to hire could go out and cobble together single subject interviews that would stand as "data" or rather what you meant to say: "evidence". All of which would speak highly of the utility of lying (and if the off chance that one or two didn't, those interviews would be excluded as is de facto practice in modern scientific "data collection" whenever politics are involved. The same holds for the inverse interests).
To gently help you with your attempt to appeal to science , in the vain hope that you aren't tossing word salad.
Again, people have a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney. Two rights that they should ALWAYS exercise.
Coercing confessions is literally how law enforcement gets any confession. If someone confesses, its not up to the cops as to whether or not the confession is true. It is then up to a court. Cops don't convict anyone.
If a suspect messes up and confesses to something that they did not do, then it is up to a jury to exonerate them.
But the suspect is not supposed to forgo their Miranda rights in the first place. Not doing so makes things much better for them.
Literally an attorney is the best and front line legal protection for all peoplle guilty and innocent. The right to one exists.
You want to legally protect people from making self-incriminating false confessions. Cops are not going to be the vehicle for that protection. Again, see the suspect's right to an attorney.