Monday, August 26, 2013

This Is So Troubling


Last week I read an article about a man who was convicted of rape and has spent 16 years behind bars. The story goes like this. In 1998 a man, by the name of Daryl Kelly, was convicted of raping his nine year old daughter. Mr. Kelly had been living with his wife Charade, and their five children, in Newburgh, N.Y. which is about 90 miles north of New York City. In October of 1997 Kelly's daughter told the police that Daryl had raped her.

Obviously such an allegation is very serious and Kelly was taken into custody. Dan Slepian writes, “On the morning of October 29, 1997 Newburgh police took Kelly downtown for questioning. They found some of his answers suspicious. For example, when they asked him why his semen and fingerprints were found on his daughter, Daryl scrambled for an explanation. According to a police report, he said, 'My wife is doing drugs and alcohol. Maybe she’s setting me up.'”

Kelly wouldn't find out until later that no semen or fingerprints had actually been found. The investigators were lying. Kelly was found guilty and convicted to 20-40 years in prison. In a very troubling turn of events, Kelly's daughter eventually came clean and admitted that she had lied. That her father had never raped her. She only said that he had raped her because her mother forced her to say it. Kelly's wife was indeed hooked on drugs and, when asked, she couldn't remember why she forced her daughter to lie.

Things like drug addiction and spousal estrangement are very complicated matters and they are beyond the scope of this blog post. What really disgusts me, right now, is the lies the investigators told. As it turns out, the police are allowed to lie, to crime suspects, in an effort to solicit a confession. According to Julia Layton, “With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. The belief is that an innocent person would never confess to a crime she didn't commit, even if she were confronted with false physical evidence of her involvement. Unfortunately, that's not always the case, but it's a big part of the reason why the police are allowed to employ deceptive tactics in interrogation.”

This is SO troubling to me. False confessions are a very real thing. And there are innocent people, in prison, who were convicted based on false confessions. It goes a lot like this. The investigator claims to be in possession of sufficient hard-evidence to convict you of a crime. If you don't fess-up the penalty will be a lot worse than if you do. You might assume that a law enforcement officer tends to tell the truth. After all, getting to the truth is what our court system is supposed to be all about.

 Plus, when you staring at the possibility of serving 20 years in prison, a plea-bargain for 5 years might not look so bad. This has a lot to do with a cognitive bias that we all suffer from. The cognitive bias, known in psychology as "anchoring," has been well-established. It's the reason restaurants put high-priced items on the menu. If the most expensive bottle of wine on the list is $60, you probably won't order it. However, sitting next to a $200 bottle it looks a lot more reasonable.

 This is a big part of what makes the investigator's lies so troubling. Humans are not very good at judging things in isolation. We are much better at using comparisons. I just gave you an example with bottles of wine. When the investigator lies, and says that she has more evidence than she really does, the anchoring bias is induced in the suspect. As I mentioned, 20 years appears to be an eternity. While 5 years might look somewhat manageable. Now, I highly doubt there's much I can do to change the system. Investigators are likely to the right to lie indefinitely. There is, however, something I can do to help level the playing field.

We've all heard of our Miranda Rights. This is a statute in U.S. Law that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 1966. As the saying goes, if you don't know your rights, you don't have any. The Miranda Warning, as it is often referred to, reminds you of your two (and only two) rights, when being questioned by law enforcement. The first is your right to remain silent. This is certainly a viable option but perhaps not entirely practical. If you're “downtown” being questioned, time and pressure may wear you down. You may eventually crack and start to speak. We can probably all think of times where exhaustion and frustration made some wild things come out of our mouth. Or, as the comedian Ron White once said, “I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability.”

Your other right is the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to call your momma or to call your pastor or anything like that. You only have the right to an attorney. But, to paraphrase Mr. White, you have the right to an attorney but you might not have the ability. Meaning, attorneys usually ain't cheap. I say usually because there is at least one insistence where there are within range. My company makes top-rated law firms completely affordable. And this means 24/7, which is a big deal. If you want more information let me know.

Don't get me wrong. I am no supporter of guilty people walking away free. However, at the same time, it makes me sick to my stomach that innocent people, like Daryl Kelly, have their lives thrown away being bars. Life is so short and precious, I can't stand the idea of false imprisonment. The story of Mr. Kelly got me thinking about something I read from Mike Eades. Dr. Eades turned me on to a couple videos, on YouTube, that speak to the importance of having an attorney by your side. First I'll quote Eades' words and then I'll include links to the two videos. They are sequential videos, of the same presentation, in two parts. They're kind of lengthy but I think you should watch them. As I have before, I will quote GI Joe, “Knowing is half the battle.”

Here's what Dr. Eades said, “These long must-watch videos are in two parts: the first part is by a defense attorney discussing the unbelievable complexity of the law, especially federal law, and the difficulty of simply going through life without knowingly or unknowingly breaking some kind of law. And he discusses the dangers of talking to the police without a lawyer present. The second part is a talk by a police detective confirming everything the attorney says and, fascinatingly, discussing his own tricks, learned in over 25 years of police work, to get people to talk to him and even to confess to crimes.

“I’ll probably alienate any readers who are involved in law enforcement, which isn’t my intention. I’m sure that if any law enforcement officials were suddenly under investigation, they wouldn’t say a word without their lawyer present. The rest of us need these same protections.

“I’m not presenting these videos for any criminals who may be reading, but for the average citizen who happens to get crosswise with the police. Every single police officer I know (and I know a half dozen or so) are hard working, dedicated, responsible, and even kind-hearted folks, but they can make mistakes. I make mistakes, so I figure they can too. The officer speaking on the last part of this video says that he doesn’t really interrogate people that he doesn’t think are already guilty. So, you are basically assumed guilty if you’re under investigation for whatever. And if the officer is mistaken, you can be in real trouble. You can’t talk your way out of it; you can only make it worse. When you watch these videos, you’ll see what I mean.

“Most clever career criminals know to never speak to the police without an attorney. The stupid criminals don’t make it long as criminals before they’re locked up. It’s the non-criminals … who need the protections these videos describe. Don’t think your smart enough or clever enough to intellectually steamroll over an investigator. They are very, very good at what they do. It’s their world, and you are totally a fish out of water in that world.”

Here are the YouTube links:



Posted by at