Talk:Police perjury

Previous deletion debate Result was Keep. Discussion page link was corrupted.

American-only Subject matter?

It is not clear from the article whether this "slang" / associated practice is isolated to the US or not. I'm from the UK and I thought this sort of thing had stopped happening here, possibly even even twenty / thirty years ago. If it is maybe an explicit delaration of the same should be made near the beginning of the article. Maybe "US police slang" would be appropriate? 79.66.205.219 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I've made that change. The article and references are all U. S. references. So it is indeed "U. S. police slang." Whether it's used outside the U. S. I wouldn't know, but "U. S. police slang" doesn't necessarily imply U. S. only. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the title change without changing the content?

Even though the current title of this article is "police perjury", it seems like the content is specifically about the term testilying.

I think the title should be changed back to reflect the original purpose and the actual content. Barring objections, I'll make the change in a couple of weeks.

69.158.90.85 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect that already takes that into account. I also think that these are synonomous terms. I think you are making a distinction with any practical difference. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Just saying ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

Article seems too heavily focussed on a a single POV with limited number of sources - including citations for Alan Dershowitz, Joseph D. McNamara, and historical articles from the Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times. As presented, all these sources carry the same POV. These may be acceptable sources, but no alternative POV, ideas or discussion is presented to the audience. Hatnote added. SomeThingsLaw (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, but I wonder what those sources with an alternative POV would be. Police insiders insisting that officers would never do such a thing? It's hard to prove a negative. Jbening (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SomeThingsLaw These articles suggest it exists. In my experience this is true; one can argue about the causes, to be sure. Obviously, my anecdotes and yours are no substitute for citations to a WP:RS.

There are legitimate questions about its implications and cures, if any. Justifications might exist. Dissension and opposite view is almost nonexistent. One would have to take the position that the quality of justice is unimpeded. Reliance on the fact finders to sort out individual acts of police perjury is at best naive.

We could use a world wide viewpoint. Obviously, that is missing.

If you you have sources that say that 'the end justifies the means' we'd love to see them.

If there are sources to the contrary, bring them on. We're waiting.

What's stopping you? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A world view point would likely be more balanced.

I believe it exist. Although I do question whether the issue has been exaggerated with repeated media reports; as well as whether efforts to study and combat it are simply not reported on. In situations it does occur, justice is certainly impeded.

Is it as prevalent as depicted in the article? Are there efforts curb and prevent it, such as oversight or investigative boards/commissions? Supervisors sitting in on court testimony? Automatic recording with police cameras? If dishonest officers are not prosecuted for perjury, are they handled by adding to Brady disclosure lists? Or other documentation / administrative action? Is there training to prevent it?

There has been at least one academic study on police corruption and resulting arrests under a DOJ-NIJ grant which found officers are arrested at a rate of 1.7 officers per 100,000 population nationwide. In a Washington Post article, a national FOP executive said the number of arrests was “not particularly notable...when you take into account there are between 850,000 and 950,000 law enforcement officers.” Not specific to perjury, but helps demonstrate there is additional information available in general.

Other sources such as the US Institute of Peace and Transparency.org Corruption Perception Index demonstrate general police corruption concerns are not specific to only the US. In 2006, INTERPOL announced Global Standards to Combat Corruption in Police Services.

A 2012 academic study which also takes the NYPD Mollen Commission Report into account, mentions "[t]he problem for scholars interested in understanding off-duty police misconduct is that virtually all of the existing data describes the misbehavior of NYPD cops" (p. 2). Seems like most original source information regarding police perjury goes back to the NYPD Mollen Commission. Was the term testilying only an NYPD thing?

Hopefully, there are additional sources available to support a more balanced article. SomeThingsLaw (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to the use and ubiquity of the word "Testilying" see Editorial Board (July 2, 2015). "Editorial: Police perjury: It's called 'testilying'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 8, 2019. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Chicago Tribune editorial has some nice factoids that could be added to the article, and its statements about the relationship between police perjury and Mapp v Ohio is expressed better than the corresponding text in the article, and could be used as a source for that point in the article. Jbening (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Boston Globe editorial

Thanks for your recent contributions, 7&6. I see you added back the unsourced supposed Boston Globe editorial. As I said in my edit description, I searched the EbscoHost Newspaper Source database, which is supposed to include the Boston Globe, and I couldn't find a Boston Globe editorial from 2003 that included even simply the word "testilying", even though I found other Boston Globe articles from 2003 in that database. Given that, I'd say the burden of proof is on whoever wants to include that quotation, to find evidence that it actually did come from a Boston Globe editorial. Any objections to my removing it again? Jbening (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]