Importance Of False Confessions

It may seem implausible that someone would confess to a crime they did not commit, but it does happen, and the prevalence of such confessions occurs at a much higher rate in juvenile populations. Aggressive interrogation methods, like those used in the Reid Technique, lead to a greater probability of false confessions among juvenile subjects than if those techniques had not been used. In a study completed by University of San Francisco law professor and renowned false confession researcher, Richard Leo, 35% of the 125 proven false confession cases he sampled included confessors who were under the age of 18 (2004). Before we examine what it is about this technique that prompts false confessions, we must first outline the systematic, nine-step process developed by John E. Reid & Associates nearly forty years ago.

Studying collage students, or any other narrowed group, does not represent the majority of individuals that could be in the situation of a false confession. The consequences of a confession of a crime can lead to an investigation to close, leaving the "perpetrator" with higher charges. These real life consequences can also discredit any real evidence on a case, letting the real perpetrator off. With this, if an individual decides to retract their false confession, a jury is more likely to convict them because they are seen as untrustworthy (Kassin et al., 2010). These consequences are unlikely to be taken into consideration with experimental research on false

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.

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

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

To develop an experimental paradigm to study the influence of psychologically based interrogation techniques on true and false confessions.

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 Canada, the leading cause of wrongful conviction is due to the factor of eyewitness account. It has been proven that individual’s minds are not like tape recorders because everyone cannot precisely and accurately remember the description of what another person or object looks like. The courts looks at eyewitness accounts as a great factor to nab perpetrators because they believe that the witness should know what they are taking about and seen what occurred on the crime scene. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts lead to a 70 percent chance of wrongful conviction, where witnesses would substantially change their description of a perpetrator.

“It was me. I did it. I’m guilty.” It’s what every interrogator is waiting for and hoping to hear. Any variation will do the job, as either is the heart of each and every confession. The main purpose of an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a suspect that they believe has lied or is guilty of the crime they’re investigating. They are looking for a confession. Confessions are the most damaging and influential piece of evidence of the suspect’s guilt that the state can use against a defendant (Leo, 2009). It makes sense. People instinctively trust confessions. After all, why would someone confess to a crime they did not commit? The mere idea that someone would admit to committing a crime they did not do boggles the mind simply because it just does not seem rational. However, the fact remains that false confessions do happen, and for a multitude of different reasons. This paper will begin with an examination of false confessions in general, then focus on the different types of false confessions, including what leads to their occurrence, and will conclude by discussing ways in which false confessions could be avoided.

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.

For a society that is greatly influenced by Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and Bones, a confession of the offender is seen as an ultimate checkmate of the case because it implies the guilt of the confessor. Thus, a confession, especially the ones with detailed account and perfect representation of emotions (Leo, 2008), outweighs the evidences of innocence and stirs the case against the accused (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). People believe that they are open-minded about the possibility of false confession but in reality, the public, law enforcers and justice officials have biases that often infer guilt to the suspect instead of investigating for the truth, which leads to wrongful conviction. According to Leo and Drizin (2004), false confession is the primary cause of law miscarriage (Leo and Drizzin, 2004). False confessors lived many years in jail before being exonerated while others remain imprisoned (Leo and Drizzin, 2004).

The experimenter will use either the minimization or maximization interrogation technique, or a neutral control involving no interrogation to try and elicit a false confession about the crash. If the participant confesses to accidentally pressing the key that supposedly would end the computer program, then a form is constructed for the participant to sign and time to confession or denial is recorded. The participant will then wait in a separate room outside of the experiment room. A confederate will pose as another participant waiting to engage in the experiment. The confederate will then ask the participant “What happened?” and the participant’s response is recorded. If the response is “I pressed the ‘ALT’ key”, it is recorded as an internalized confession. The participant will receive a full debriefing on the study and advised to complete the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale over the following five to seven days to identify any complications that may arise from participation in the experiment (Schrantz, 2012). The Rosenberg Self- Esteem Scale is designed as a ten item Likert scale used to measure self worth by assessing positive and negative feelings about one’s self (Rosenberg, 1965) Results will be analyzed with hierarchical regression to reveal the

In 1989, five African and Hispanic-American boys, between the ages of 14 and 16, were “wilding” in New York City’s Central Park, unaware that the events of that evening would change their lives forever. That same evening a female jogger was found beaten, raped and left for dead. She had multiple fractures as well has her eye socket being crushed and having lost over three quarters of her blood. She survived the attack but was unable to recall any of the events of that evening. Within 48 hours of the attack the five African and Hispanic-American boys were arrested and charged with the crime based solely on the confessions obtained by the police. There was no physical evidence tying any of the boys to the crime. Four of the confessions were videotaped and were later used in court to incriminate the boys. The boys described the crime in gruesome detail and the role that each of them played in the crime. After the arrests, the boys all recanted their confessions, and said that the reason that they felt compelled to confess was because they were lead to believe that if they would confess they would be allowed to return home. Despite the lack of evidence and the fact that the boys recanted the confessions persuaded the police officers, the prosecutors of the case, the jurors, and the nation that the boys were guilty and led to their convictions and the boys were sentenced to prison. Thirteen years later a man named Matias Reyes came forward on his own volition and confessed to the

A false confession is when an innocent person is forced to admit to a crime they did not commit. False confessions were responsible for nearly a quarter of convictions reversed by DNA evidence. People are forced into false confessions by authorities, like police interrogators, who trick them into believing that it would be more beneficial if they confessed, regardless of their innocence. A major factor in false confessions is stress, those who are innocent actually feel less stress during an interrogation and they may drop their guard and not think about their words carefully.

Cochran et al (2016) provide a case study analysis of the temporal nature of memory in suspect lineups and crimes being investigated by law enforcement. The study involves a longitudinal evaluation of participants that are given evidence of a crime (through slideshows) that allows them to ascertain the criminal act or to choose a suspect in a lineup. At a later time, the participants are given altered information on the crime, which revealed a greatly distorted memory of the crimes that the participants did not remember. This misinformation was an attempt to trick the participants into affirming