Zero Tolerance for Lying?
By Gary W. Sykes, Ph.D.

Lying. Everybody does it from time to time, and frequently for very good reasons. Sometimes we lie to make someone else feel good or to achieve some higher goal, and often we do it to prevent pain to someone who would be hurt by the truth.

There are some very good reasons to lie, for lying often enhances social interactions. Speaking from personal experience, I would advise you not to laugh or make "funny" comments when your spouse walks through the door after a visit to the hair salon. In that situation, it is better to lie and say nice things rather than tell the truth and endure the repercussions. When we greet each other we often ask, "How are you?" expecting the perfunctory reply, "I'm fine, thanks." But you may not be fine. It may have been a hellish night and you may not be feeling very well at all, but the lie makes for polite conversation. We rarely say, "I'm glad you asked! Let me tell you what has been going on in my life...." People who tell the absolute truth at all times are often avoided like the plague.

In policing there are a number of times when lying is not only acceptable but expected in order to achieve some higher good. The courts, for example, have blessed the use of deception during interrogations, and various subterfuges are commonly employed to elicit information from suspects. Sometimes lying can be defended if public safety concerns are evident. Preventing public panic, for instance, by withholding information even though there may be some kind of danger present. More controversial is the use of false stories or media manipulation in order to "trick" a suspect into a false sense of security, or to make him panic and go on the run. This latter tactic - often used in high profile cases is sometimes justified in terms of a greater good (getting the bad guy and/or protecting the public from a predator).

"Sting" operations almost always involve the use of deception. Several years ago during the Thanksgiving holiday, a police department sent a disguised letter to everyone with outstanding warrants (mostly bench warrants for traffic violations) telling the recipients they were winners of a free turkey and tickets to the Super Bowl. When people showed up to claim the prizes, they were asked for identification and then arrested. The success of this "sting" was diminished somewhat by the fact that four of those taken into custody were not the people named in the warrants, even though they had the same names. The police ended up giving away some of the borrowed turkeys to those angry citizens.

Lying is also acceptable when delivering bad news. Rather than tell relatives the absolute truth about how someone died, for example, officers sometimes withhold information or try in some way to diminish pain by changing some of the factual details or circumstances of the victim's final moments.

If deception is commonplace and often justified, why, then, should police departments establish a zero-tolerance policy on lying? In part, the answer lies in court decisions that require the prosecution to provide the defense with any information pertaining to the credibility of a witness, including any sustained complaint about an officer's veracity. As a result, a growing number of agencies have included in their job descriptions a requirement that "officers should be able to provide credible testimony about all official matters," or words to that effect. But where is the line to be drawn?

There are two things to keep in mind. First, all the examples of "acceptable" deception share similar characteristics in that the motive for the lie is not personal, and it is publicly justifiable. In other words, lying is acceptable in circumstances that involve making others feel good in social relationships, in circumstances associated with official actions with a clearly defined purpose and in circumstances where compassion is called for.

Second, lying for personal gratification, to profit oneself, or to avoid personal responsibility is fundamentally different. We all accept falsehoods that are socially functional and we may debate the justifications for official lying, but professional policing cannot condone or accept deception where the motive is to protect an officer from accountability. When all is said and done, for those who work in law enforcement there is a professionally-based moral requirement that demands the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in all official actions and utterances.