And that’s how authoritarian police states are build. One “but it’s effective” and “they’re just criminals” at a time. By the time “good citizens” discover that it’s being used against them too, it’s far too late.

>> Because it's effective I guess?

So the end justifies the means. I'm not a fan of that philosophy, as it can be used to justify all kinds of things and leads to a lack of integrity.

Agreed, and moreover is there even any evidence that it is effective? Or rather, effective at uncovering the truth as opposed to effective at eliciting a [potentially untruthful] confession?

What if wrongful convictions based on police officers lying in interrogations penalized the police officer doing interrogations? Do you think the interrogators would still continue using these methods?

Eg the police officer that interrogated Terrill Swift will now be held criminally responsible for inducing a false confession.

I think better rules on what quality of confessions police and prosecutors take into consideration would probably be sufficient. Eg. if the suspect says "okay, fine, I did it" after hours of interrogation but cannot describe what the victim looked like, what weapon they used, where they hid it afterwards, etc, that confession should be considered near-worthless. The real issue isn't inducing the false confession, it's assigning it such a high evidentiary value and presenting it to a jury out of context.

Doing away with anyone who may possibly commit a crime is even more effective at combating crime than the existing options. Let's go with that. Heck, let's take care of it at birth, most efficient of all! /s

> Doing away with anyone who may possibly commit a crime

That's been tried at various times and places in world history. It doesn't have a good record.

Indeed, hence the sarcasm.