You're a detective. You are 95% sure someone is the serial killer that's been going around killing people and their current count is 6 people. They are really good at hiding their tracks and you've already brought them in for questioning many times. Their tone, body language, and their history all point to them being the killer, but you don't have the evidence to put them away. Would you fabricate evidence with the 95% chance in your gut that it's them? Or is it innocent until proven guilty and let the potential killer roam free?
Updates
1 y
You have to assume you can't catch him because he's the type to wait patiently until he's sure surveillance is over and he's in the green. You only have the option of planting evidence or letting him walk due to the time spent on his case and his lawyer forcing you to sign a immunity agreement.
What would you do in this "fabricating evidence" dilemma?
If you are 95% sure, you should not place fake evidence to catch someone. Unless you are 100% sure because you saw it or something on that level but lack evidence, that’s the only time you can risk placing fake evidence to why someone but you run the chance of letting them go green if your fabrication is discovered. But that would be the only time it should be done if it’s done at all.
Because being 95% sure implied that it can just SEEM that way and not actually be.
Here’s an analogy.
My aunt came into the room with her new skirt. I’m alone in the room. She sees me and says these are my new skirts I’m going to hide them way back here (as she opens the closest and makes room for them at the far end) she hangs up the skirt and moves everything back infront of it to hide them.
She leaves the room. And goes out somewhere.
Moments later my sister comes into the room. I leave the room. When I see my sister come out of the room, she’s wearing the skirt my aunt just hid in the back of the closet. And she headed out the front door with my mom.
I was like oh 😯she put on my aunt’s skirt!
Later that day my aunt returns.
When I go into the room she’s mad and says “why did you take my skirt!”
I said “I didn’t”
She says “yes you did! You were the only one here and the only one that knew where they were because I told you”
And I said “I know, but I didn’t take them, my sister did”
And she starts crying and her mom walks in (my grandma) and she starts telling her that I always disrespect her and take her stuff and lie about it’
I felt attacked. I felt sad and mad. I said “I didn’t take anything”
But they left the room and my grandma consoling her as she continues to cry
I felt horrible. I was just a kid and didn’t know how to tell my grandma she was lying and that I didn’t do it. But she continues to cry accusing me.
I’m sure in her head she was 100% sure I had done it. It’s not a murder of course but it’s an example of something that happened to me where she was without a doubt sure I had done something that I had not. It just really SEEMED that way.
So then when my sister arrives, she’s clearly wearing her skirt and I said see? She told them.
My aunt answers with “you told her to take them because you were the only one that knew where they were”
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 I didn’t tell anyone to take anything. She just wanted to make me guilty no matter what. Because in her head I was the only one that knew 🤯and needs me to be guilty of it.
So no, I don’t think anyone should plant evidence just because you feel certain if something, unless you SAW IT happen and have no evidence, only then can it be a moment to try to do that. Otherwise no.
OK, what movie is this scenario from this time, Hawk? :D
No, I wouldn't fabricate evidence. It's unethical. I'd just be a better detective. I'd watch them like a... you know. :)
The reason is that there are too many weird things that come up. For example, an incident where police are called to a man's home and an officer is shot and wounded. They find the weapon, make the arrest, and it's an open and shut case. The man was clearly guilty of shooting the officer.
However, the man insists he didn't shoot the officer and only fired the gun into the air. He hires his own detective to look into the matter. The detective does some looking around and talks with the officers. Long story short, the wounded officer was carrying an illegal firearm with him when he arrived on the scene and it accidentally went off, shooting himself. It used the same rounds that the suspect's gun did, but nobody questioned the officer. So, the supposedly "obviously guilty" man wasn't guilty at all, even though it was 95% certain he was. They just assumed because it looked obvious. The officer said nothing because he would be in trouble for possessing the illegal firearm.
And I agree with your take on it. But it's still a tough choice to let someone that could potentially be guilty go. I believe in accountability and justice. I would hate myself if I let a killer go 😅
@HawkPerception Yeah, it would make me sick, too. What an awful hypothetical situation. I'm glad I've never had to be on a jury for a killer so far. Those guys are sickos.
I might see if Batman could hang around town for a few days... I know he's from the DC universe, but ya know, it's worth a shot!
Okay let’s go play by play here: “You're a detective (alright alright I can cook with this) You are 95% sure someone is the serial killer that's been going around killing people and their current count is 6 people. They are really good at hiding their tracks and you've already brought them in for questioning many times. Their tone, body language, and their history all point to them being the killer (okay throw em behind bars!!!), but you don't have the evidence to put them away (sh*t) Would you fabricate evidence with the 95% chance in your gut that it's them? Or is it innocent until proven guilty and let the potential killer roam free?” My response: Chief HawkPerception, if we don’t have enough evidence then we don’t have enough evidence. I would NOT fabricate / plant evidence, I believe in the principles of law & order and this person is indeed innocent before proven guilty your honor!
Now, in my NON professional opinion maybe while questioning them, my boys can investigate the properties & surrounding areas & conduct interviews to find the necessary evidence…. Other than that they would be free to go.
%95 is enough for the prosecutor to accept the case. It's a smoking gun for a prosecutor. Why would you go and fabricate the other %5 and the defense may figure out what you did? The jury or judge will find them not guilty or throw the case put, and you will no longer be a credible detective.
95% sure is not enough for a prosecutor to my knowledge. You need hard evidence to lock someone away. Not your word that you're 95% sure they've done the crime.
Well, 95% would have hard evidence. DNA, tire tracks, etc etc. %100 is if you did easy detective work and caught them on camera. I've seen serial killers caught off way less and were the killer. And will you look at that, the same MO didn't happen again. Can't get a Jeffery Dahmer head in the refrigerator every time!
There are cases where investigators are 95% sure that the suspect is guilty, but don't have enough evidence against them to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was them though.
Agreed. But they only need to convince a jury of his peers. You're talking court and field work. 95% field work to go with can convince many jurors. As opposed to 50% evidence. You want the perfect absolute smoking gun in court, which in many cases is hard to get, realisticly. 95% also includes witness testimony. Wow, 95%? Good odds for a prosecutor.
I could see setting a trap without the help of any other officers (off-the-books) and if he/she couldn't resist and take the bait then nobody has to know it was planned.
There's no right and wrong here so you're good haha. I'm having a lot of fun with these moral dilemma questions and hearing a lot of different opinions
I would never fabricate evidence. I'm human, and I could be wrong, regardless of how strong I feel in my gut. I'd do whatever I can to find solid evidence of their crimes. Immunity agreement? Never.
And just to make it clear... I wouldn't fabricate evidence because it's illegal and I might get caught. I wouldn't do it on moral grounds.
Yeah I've been told by people on dating apps too. Kinda makes me feel good because it means I'm attractive enough to catfish, but pisses me off because I lose credibility lol. Mind me asking where you found them?
Acts like me... the fuck? How can he act like me unless he knows me personally? Either that or he used AI or some shit to analyze the way I write and imitate it.
Ya know what, just to prove I'm the legit Hawk here... ask me to do any hand sign and I'll temporarily use that as my profile pic lmao
I'd have all of my limbs amputated. He'd probably look at life differently after being wrongfully imprisoned and treated like a criminal. I'd probably look at life differently missing all of my limbs
Damn I respect it man, but I do think it's a bit extreme and you'd probably think differently when it comes down to it. It's not so easy to just chop off all your shit 😂
It's illegal and wrong, plus it can backfire against you.
Then you become part of the problem. His lawyer proves evidence was planted and the entire case gets thrown out, setting the killer free to kill again.
Have you never been asked a hypothetical question in your life? Like I feel if someone asked you if everyone smoked weed at the same time in the world what would happen? You'd probably respond with "That would never happen so there's no point in this question."
Even that's more realistic as there could have been a apocalyptic event that has wiped out almost all of humanity. What you are arguing with is probability calculation.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions