Wrongful convictions are common in the court-system. In fact, wrongful convictions are not the rare events that you see or hear on televisions shows, but are very common. They stem from some sort of systematic defect that lead to wrongful convictions such as, eyewitness misidentification testimony, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions and incriminating statements, DNA lab errors, false confessions, and informants (2014). Bringing awareness to all these systematic defects, which result in wrongful, is important because it will better adjust the system to avoid making the same mistakes with future cases. However, false confession is not a systematic defect. It does not occur because files were misplaced or a lab technician put one too many drops. False confessions occur because of some of psychological attempt to protect oneself and their family. Thus, the courts responsibility should be to reduce these false confessions.
Determining a false confession proves difficult due to the multitude of dimensions involved. According to Kassin and Wrightsman’s (1985) survey of the literature, there are three main types of false confessions—voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized. Unlike coerced false confessions, voluntary false confessions arise as a result of someone willingly turning themselves into the police with an account of their crime (McCann, 1998). Voluntary false confessions can result from multiple motives, including an internalized need for punishment or to save someone else’s face. In contrast, coerced false confessions directly result from police interrogations. While coerced-compliant confessions are made to avoid interrogation, escape the stressful situation, or achieve some other reward, coerced-internalized confessions emerge when a suspects begins to
Our criminal justice system has over time implemented and changed the means of sentencing and punishment for crimes. In the United States plea deals are accountable for 90% of criminal cases. A plea deal is an agreement between prosecutor and defendant in whom the defendant accepts a guilty plea to a charge and in return receives some type of concession from the prosecution. As we have moved forward in the judicial system and now have the ability to look back on previous cases, plea deals have become more controversial. The majority of awareness in this area has been used to look deeper into false confessions, grazing right over the fact that false confessions are a large part plea deals. A controversy arose when many refused to believe that situational factors during interrogations and dispositional factors inherent to the suspects could result in false confessions. (Redlich, 2010)
Police interrogate suspects on a daily basis, but how can they tell if the confession is real? We have all heard, at one time or another of someone confessing to a crime they didn’t commit. Then your next thought is “I would never confess to something I didn’t do”. The only way you can be a 100% sure of that is if you have been through an interrogation before. This paper is going to define “confession” and tell how an innocent person will confesses to a crime they didn’t commit. This paper will also show the history of interrogations.
“The wall street Journal noted in Sept. 8, 2013 report, National Registry of Exonerations statistics suggest that young people in particular are more prone to admitting guilt for crimes they did not commit. Thirty-eight percent of exonerations for crimes allegedly committed by youth under 18 in the quarter century involved false confessions.” (John Wihbey and Margaret Weigel,2015,Para.3) False confession is the admission of being guilty for a crime that they did not commit. In the interrogation, Police officers may question witness or victims who may have information on a specific crime. The officers may lead a group of questions about the event or evidence of the crime scene. The suspects or victims may know information about it, however,
Stephanie Ericsson, through personal anecdotes in her essay “The Ways We Lie,” reveals that no matter how big or how small, a lie is a lie. Throughout the essay, she defines the different ways people lie and explains to the reader the significance of the lies they tell. At the same time, she gives examples in which she lies because she believes that “we lie. We all do.” This keeps the readers from thinking she is criticizing everyone, but herself. As she sees it, we need to take in consideration the consequences of the lies we tell before telling the bank “my deposit is in the mail” when it isn’t. Such use of personal anecdotes support the theme and strengthen the essay because they establish pathos which move the audience to realize the impact
The mere concept of a compulsive or pathological liar is often repulsive to most of us, but the truth is, many of us aren’t that far from crossing that bridge. In her essay, “The Ways We Lie”, Stephanie Ericsson analyzes not only the many occasions in which we lie, but also the meaning and consequences of those lies. Although Ericsson’s definitions are well articulated, the evidence she employs to support many of her statements lack depth.
What does the Central Park Five case and Martin Tankleff have in common? In both New York cases, the suspects provided false confessions to law enforcement, and they were found guilty because of interrogation tactics utilized by law enforcement. Several years after these cases, Kassin and Kiechel conducted a study
The first reason is that people trust confession is because of self-serving behavior and taking people at their face value (Kassin, 2005). The second reason is that detecting deception is a learned skill not a normal one that most people have. The third and final reason that people trust confession is that will being interrogated people can be coached what to say that aligns with the crime or they may overhear parts about the crime. Because of the amount of false confessions and the trust people put in believing them there needs to be some reform made in interrogation procedures. Three areas in particular need to be looked at and the first is the length of time for the interrogation. Many factors play a role in a person
A. False Confessions Many individuals do not fully understand the possible consequences of making a false confession or report to detectives. The construction of a false version of events, whether due to
False confessions are a major problem in the Criminal Justice system, since 1989, a total of two thousand people have been convicted for serious crimes that they did not commit. There are many causes of false confessions, some including a low IQ and mental illness. Today, people are often targeted by detectives when being interrogated for committing a crime. As the causes of false confessions include mental illness and low intelligence quote, therefore leading to false convictions, there has to be solutions to these issues.
“It is difficult to prove a causal relationship between permissible investigative and interrogatory deception and testimonial deception. Police freely admit to deceiving suspects and defendants. They do not admit to perjury, much less to the rationalization of perjury. There is evidence, however of the acceptability of perjury as a means to the end of conviction. The evidence is limited and fragmentary and is certainly not dispositive” (Skolnick, 1982).
Hey, Melinda did you know “Deception can occur in any or all three stages of the detecting process during the investigation, interrogation, and court testimony” (Ciske, 2009). Criminals have every reason to expect that law enforcement officers are going to use deception against them, just as well as they lie
False confessions is a major flaw in the criminal justice system that must be addressed through videotaping and audio recording with the help of outside viewers. There are a few cause to this problem and society as a whole can change them to solve the
During the processes, there are some key people that will contribute to clarify what happened. Among them, the police, the forensic service, the expert witnesses or witnesses testimony. Sadly, while sometimes those are the ones who elucidate the crime, at times, their confessions may be critical for the innocent person who is finally convicted because of their lies and corruption.