In that case, it is generally accepted that a) the CEO did work for the security services and b) the government did its best to cover up its role in the affair.
After watching the whole documentary, I can't see how this confession can be considered "forced" - best claim defense attorney had was that the boy was so mentally challenged he didn't understand what he was confessing to.
Meanwhile, in non-first world countries, torturing and beating subjects on the usual, even non-vioent crimes is a routine. US justice had problems, but your "especially" is unwarranted.
That we've identified how this human behavior yields improper enforcement of law and try to take measures to guard against it is a good sign. Never-ending fight I imagine though.
They took a guy, put him in a van, tortured him, before they were going to process, and potentially charge him. This was torture by the police who also do interrogations. This is not some isolated incident. This is normal police procedure. Intimidate. Arrest. Torture. Prosecute.
Not sure where I see you mention anything at all about stats? It's hard to make statistical arguments for things that are difficult to quantify because they are so underreported.
Are you truly believing that it was Donald Trump and he was initially named "Richard Craig Smith" in 1984 and later changed his name, or are you simply making a political point?
Given Poe’s law, it’s difficult to know whether anyone is exaggerating or not. So belorn’s question is most likely genuine. Once the answer to the question is known, the debate could continue one way or another, but not until then.
In that case, it is generally accepted that a) the CEO did work for the security services and b) the government did its best to cover up its role in the affair.