NYT: Why Police Officers Lie Under OathBy MICHELLE ALEXANDER
New York Times
Feb. 04, 2013
Survey: 'Generation Z' Rejecting Parents' Liberalism And Shifting Hard Right
'My Name is F**k America!' Muslim Woman in Hijab 'Caught Committing Food Stamp Fraud'
Germany: Arab Migrants Playing 'Taharrush' Sexual Assault 'Game' At Public Pools
Feminists Say It's 'Racist And Sexist' for Italians to Have Italian Babies
WATCH: Sick Hillary Downs Lozenge to Stave Off Coughing Fit
Note, reading this New York Times article will disqualify you from jury duty. - Chris THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.