[jachriga]

> If criminals would behave themselves, there would be less demand for "law enforcement".

I don't think you realize you're arguing against all laws here?

Criminals don't behave themselves, so we make laws and punish them. Law enforcement doesn't behave itself, so we should make laws and punish them.

[mrangle]

>I don't think you realize you're arguing against all laws here?

How does the relative concept of "less demand begs less supply" translate into an absolutist eradication argument in your mind?

Ignoring you moving the goalpost from a conversation about law enforcement personnel to a conversation about the legal code. See next.

How does a comment on law enforcement personnel supply (ie: the enforcement part of law enforcement) logically migrate to a comment on the legal code's existence?

I made no such argument. I made a rhetorical point that meant to imply that law enforcement personnel supply (relative ability to enforce the law in any given area), and their techniques, are the outcome of criminality.

Given that LE lying to suspects is not "misbehavior" but a standard investigative technique that falls comfortably within a just legal system.

All evidence has to be disclosed. There are already justifiably harsh laws against falsifying evidence for the purpose of charging suspects.

Suspects have the right to shut up and to an attorney, both of which will fully protect them from being coerced into giving false confessions.

[gs17]

>All evidence has to be disclosed.

The article is about a case where it was not truthfully disclosed:

>Bradford recalls police making threats and lying to him about DNA evidence they said proved he committed the crime. After hours of interrogation, he confessed, hoping the evidence would acquit him.

"Falsifying evidence" does not apply when it's words spoken during an interrogation. If his confession became fruit of the poisoned tree due to lying to him, it wouldn't have been an issue. At least 10 years of this man's life was lost because non-existent evidence was claimed in an interrogation.

>Given that LE lying to suspects is not "misbehavior" but a standard investigative technique that falls comfortably within a just legal system.

Several other countries don't rely on this "technique". Surely you don't think American cops are so incompetent they can't catch anyone without it.

>Suspects have the right to shut up and to an attorney, both of which will fully protect them from being coerced into giving false confessions.

Except the suspects typically do not know the rules of the game they're being forced to play. The "I want a lawyer, dog" guy knew he had a right to an attorney, he didn't know you need to prompt engineer the police.