Examples Of False Confessions

While people find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a crime he or she did not commit, there are people who end up making a false confession. In the Central Park Five case, the police managed to get the young boys to admit to the crime with the false promise that they would be allowed to go home if they confessed (Kassin, 2002). For Martin Tankleff, while in an

When they interrogated Michael they did so multiple times in a span of two days. Further, their last interrogating, the one during which Michael confessed, lasted six hours (“United States,” 2010). The fact that Michael spent so much time being interrogated, definitely increased the likelihood of him providing a false confession (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). Another factor that played a role was the fact that Michael was only 14 at the time (“United States,” 2010). His age meant that he was not yet developmentally capable of handling this situation. Michael, as a 14 year old, was more likely to spend time thinking about the present instead of the future, and might not contemplate the full consequences of his actions. Therefore, it is very likely that he confessed to escape the situation, without completely releasing what the consequences were going to be (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). Further, Michael was also alone when he was interrogated (“United States,” 2010). Had the police provided him with an uninvolved third party that would look out for his well-being and help him understand the situation he was in, he might have been less likely to falsely confess (Costanzo & Krauss,

“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).

The risk to benefit ratio regarding interrogation techniques that are associated with false confessions in my opinion is the investigators may get the benefit of a confession and a conviction of their suspect, but once it is known that the confession is false; they run the risk of several things, the convection will be tossed out, the suspect will be set free, the officers as well as their department might be sued and the biggest risk of all is the actual perpetrator is free to commit another crime. I am between using them and not using them; the interrogation techniques because to me the fact is yes the investigators may sometimes get a true confession but running the risk of getting a false confession is pretty high. I do however think that

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

Plea deals go hand in hand with false confessions in many ways. A false guilty plea is essentially the same as a false confession. A suspect agrees to plead guilty to the crime in order to receive a lesser sentence. It’s not a coincidence that many haven’t heard or read about false guilty pleas, as it tends to be a large gap in research. One of the biggest factors of this is the lack of statistics in the area. If 90% of criminal cases end in plea deals that leaves only 10% that actually make it court. This means that 90% of criminal court cases are negotiated and ended without being seen by a

As the video evidently shows, the overall case was fabricated with the use of psychological tactics that broke some fundamental aspects of ethics. Getting one to confess to a crime is never easy, hence borne the numerous methods introduced and followed by almost all law enforcement officers to “read” possible suspects during interrogations. Further, with the right assembly of personal/background information, the combination of circumstances/techniques, and psychological manipulation can even make the most hardened suspect to confess (“How Police Interrogation works”). To add on, there was a time when “physical abuse” toward the possible suspects during interrogations and the confession obtained thereafter was accepted in court (“How Police Interrogation works”); Not only is this a misuse of authoritative power, but also unethical—inflicting mental /or physical pain upon the individual to confess almost seems extreme.

When questioning witnesses of a crime, detectives may choose a specific technique; one technique is the Reid Technique. The Reid Technique is a multi-step questioning method that pressures the witnesses or the accused to admit to the crime. It is used in North America. According to Professor Brent Snook, a psychologist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, the Reid Technique is “Starsky and Hutch”, where two hot head detectives “beat up” their suspects to encourage them confess (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/25/youre-guilty-now-confess-false-admissions-put-polices-favourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/). This paper will examine the steps of the Reid Technique, as well as reveal substantial evidence that this technique should be banned. This technique has led to false confessions. Not only does this mean that someone has been punished that isn’t guilty, but it also means the real criminal has not been found and punished. The arguments against the use of this technique are the following:

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.

In recent years, there have been multiple high-profile cases of people being exonerated, often by DNA testing, after giving a false confession to a crime they did not commit. People who often fall into this trap are juveniles or those with a diminished mental capacity (Redlich, 2009). DNA testing has helped many innocent people that gave false confessions be free again. This trend brings up the question of how were they able to give a false confession.

This paper contains expert information snitching, evidence on eye witness testimony, and proven study on false confessions. Appendix 1 shows the leading causes of wrongful convictions in United States. The first credited study and research analysis on wrongful convictions will demonstrate the seriousness of this problem and the need for a resolution. Various other authors and reports have been reviewed for the purpose of this research paper.

False confessions have been a leading factor in destroying the lives of many innocent people. Since the advances of technology, victims of false confessions have been exonerated from the charges previously placed on them while others are still fighting for innocence or died a criminal. One technological advance that has exonerated many individuals is DNA testing. According to Randy James, DNA testing was discovered in 1985 and was first used in court to convict Tommie Lee Andrews (Time, 2009). Today many Americans are convicted because of false confessions that have not yet been overturned with new evidence (Kassin, 2014). Although DNA testing has led to freedom for many innocent Americans, there are still many innocent people who are locked

Perhaps the most advantageous aspect of a confession is the closure it gives to everyone involved in the case, especially the victims and their families. Having said that, I still believe that conducting a thorough investigation is the best way to ensure that the right person was held accountable for the crime committed. Investigators should not be dependent on confessions. It would be unjust if an innocent man were incarcerated for a crime he did not commit and the real culprit was able to walk free.

Almost everyone who has seen a cop television show or movie has heard the saying “You have the right to remain silent”. In America, people are raised to believe that the justice system never fails, and that no matter what happens justice will always prevail, though for some people this safety net has failed them. Since the late 1980s six studies have documented 250 interrogation-induced false confessions. Police-induced false confessions are the result of multistep process and sequence of influence, persuasion, and compliance. Imagine that a solider of the U.S. military is brought in for questioning, kept locked up for sixteen hours in an interrogation room, constantly threatened with the death penalty if they did not confess to the crime, and the whole time left without representation. In 1997 this was the case for four individuals from Norfolk, Virginia held without representation and forced to give false confessions.