Let’s say a man bent on murder is on your front step asking if his intended victim is next door. You know the poor soul is home, and you believe lying is always and absolutely wrong. In other words, you think that the end never justifies the means.
So, you say to the homicidal maniac, “Yes, she should be sitting down to diner right about now.” Congratulations, you correctly applied the categorical imperative and aced Professor Kant’s final.
But seriously? Are you going to do your neighbor like that? Of course not. There aren’t many rules so immutable they will stop us from preventing tragedy. Sometimes the ends do indeed justify the means.
Even law enforcement officers aren’t immune to a little moral relativism. In fact, it’s the only thing that can possibly explain a surprising contradiction in our criminal justice system. You are not permitted to lie to a police officer during a criminal investigation, but nothing specifically prohibits police officers from lying to you.
Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided in 1969 that a confession obtained by deceit was admissible evidence, courts have rarely found deceptive police tactics inappropriate. It seems that courts have historically believed that public safety justifies this inconsistency, and studies suggest that many Americans agree. The average juror seems to think deception is necessary to elicit truthful confessions and unlikely to elicit false ones.
On this point, the pragmatic or ethical judgment might be correct, but the factual assumption is completely wrong. Let’s put it this way, I can lie to the lunatic at my door because it will benefit my neighbor immensely. It will save her life. But the police may very well be doing more harm than good when they lie to suspects in their custody.
False confessions are very real. According to the Innocence Project, 29% of all DNA exonerations have involved false confessions. Moreover, false confessions are particularly prevalent among juveniles. Roughly a third of all exonerees who were wrongly convicted as children falsely confessed to their supposed crime.
Thanks to a bill authored by Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, the State of Indiana joins in the recognition that kids are different. Senate Enrolled Act 415 will make statements made by a juvenile during a custodial interrogation inadmissible when the statement is a response to a materially false statement from a law enforcement officer. There are exceptions to the rule, and the legislation does not specifically outlaw lying (so relativism is alive and well).
Nevertheless, this new law will strike an important balance between the need to fight crime and the duty to protect innocence.
And it is important to note that this balance is being struck in a bipartisan manner. The second author on the bill is Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, and the lead House sponsor was Rep. Gregory Steuerwald, R-Avon. Thus, a bill authored by a Democrat in a legislature dominated by a Republican supermajority was supported unanimously on final passage.
When the facts change or become clearer, we pragmatic Hoosiers can change our minds. Our ethics need not be moribund or inflexible in the service of some standard of absolute right and wrong. At the same time, the ends don’t always justify the means.
The relevant question is how we define our end in the criminal justice system. Punishing wrongdoers is a part of it, so we will always seek confessions from suspects. But, because the protection of innocence is also one of our goals, we are unwilling to do whatever it takes to extract a confession.
In the end, our categorical imperative is to remain committed to the protection of innocence more than the punishment of guilt.
Zach Stock is an appellate public defender and serves as legislative counsel for the Indiana Public Defender Council. This commentary previously appeared at indianacapitalchronicle.com. Send comments to [email protected].
