The Importance 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

The term deception means the deliberate act of misleading an individual some may refer to deception as “little white lies.” Deception has long been used in the criminal justice area by officers in the detecting process of criminal cases, and is one of the most commonly used tools in the investigative process. Investigators use deception in the detecting process. This involves misleading criminals during the investigative and interrogative stages, to gather enough information about the

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

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.

Once introduced as evidence, a confession causes a negative chain reaction in the justice system and law enforcers and justice officials often include their biases in their judgment, which leads to justice miscarriage. The process of false confession starts with the law enforcement officials (Leo & Davis, 2011). According to Kassin, Meissner, and ReNorwick (2005), investigators have a high confidence in knowing a true confession but their accuracy is the same as that of the public. The investigators do not see deception but rather they infer

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

During the Christian era, authors such as Saint Augustine, Dante, and Marie de France focused on the importance and significance of God enacting true and ultimate justice upon people based on the circumstances that they are in. Authors like this allow the origins of justice to have a true beginning, and there is less debate about it being right because people believe that God’s motives are always pure and true. A person has to allow God to enter and be the focus of their life, in order to believe that situations where just action is necessary. This motion of getting closer to God is the way that people are then able to fully understand justice. This is because God is justice in the world, and He places in one’s life so that they have the capability to find it. In Confessions, it takes Saint Augustine time to progress to a state where he has been instilled with justice, and it is only then that he realizes God’s true justice. When people are put in situations that they have no control over, God is who they turn to because he will always make the right choices, and take the right action that is just and necessary. Therefore, people rely on God to be, and carry out, the justice that they want to see in their lives.

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for 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

It is ambiguous whether the second, post-Miranda confession is permissible due to a recent Supreme Court decision, Missouri v. Seibert, and its relation to an earlier decision, Oregon v. Elstad. The Court suggested that the proper test was an assessment of how effective the “Miranda warnings delivered midstream,” actually were. One concurring opinion instead believed the important question was whether the two-step interrogation was deliberately designed to get around the Miranda rule or instead resulted from decisions made in good faith by law enforcement officials. Given this uncertainty, the most basic principle to remember is that sometimes it’s not in their best interests to cooperate with questioning that happens after they have received

Prohibiting self-incrimination not only helps guarantee due process of law but also maintains one of the basic principles of American law by putting the burden of proof on the prosecution. No person should be requiring to answer any questions excepts in response to specific charges presented to him in his own language. For example, the ability to drive on public roads is considered a privilege granted by the state. When you accept that privilege, you agree to submit to testing of your blood alcohol level if a police officer reasonably suspects you are driving under the influence. Normally, forcing you to give a breath, urine or blood sample would violate your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. His well-publicized protest would eventually inspire both the constitutional right to be informed of the charges justifying arrest and trial and privilege against self-incrimination that finally the text actually says that no person " [No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself… ".