Well, sure, if you tell the police it is perfectly fine to lie to people in order to trick them into confessing, then this is just a natural progression of that.
I contacted a victim who reported that a ring worth 5,000 dollars was stolen when she threw a party. She said it had been in her dresser upstairs. There was a bathroom that people used, and they needed to pass by the dresser when they used the bathroom. She had a suspect in mind and she had her phone number. She said all she wanted was to get the ring back and she would drop the matter.
I called the woman she suspected and I told her that a ring was stolen and that the victim wanted it back with no questions asked. I also told her that we had fingerprints. (This was the lie. I had no evidence.) I hung up and waited. A couple of minutes later the phone rang. The victim answered and the caller said that the ring would be returned to her.
That's all this is. It's an extension of the court ruling that police can lie to get a confession. It's a standard tactic of military or CIA interrogators to show fake evidence to detainees in order to fool them into revealing information. The difference is that questioning an Al-Qaeda terrorist isn't and shouldn't be the same as questioning a criminal suspect. Unfortunately far too many police and judges think the end justifies the means and treat the constitution as something to be paid little attention.
Well, sure, if you tell the police it is perfectly fine to lie to people in order to trick them into confessing, then this is just a natural progression of that.
Exactly. In the administration of justice, the end never, ever justifies the means. Anybody who knowingly provided these forgeries should do at least a nickel in state prison.