If there's wide disagreement amongst judges looking at the same facts and law, how is a cop trying to do the right thing but also being expected to use all legally available tools to investigate and solve serious crimes supposed to figure this stuff out?
Stay tuned as we try to answer this question. In future articles in this series we're going to look at:
- Does legal equal ethical in the use of police deception?
- Does ethical depend on whose ox is being gored, that is - on whom the deception is being used?
- Do the legal and ethical parameters of deception depend on how serious the crime that is being investigated is? What if it could prevent a death?
- If legal doesn't equal ethical, what should be the guiding standard for police?
- Applying the legal and ethical parameters to a real case.
- What about the issue of false confessions?
- What kinds of effects can deception have on the officers using it?
- What should police leadership be doing in this critical, complicated, provocative, high stakes area of policing?