The Role Of Guilt In Criminal Law

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

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

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:

“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.

Richard A. Leo, the author of “False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications” states, “Investigators first misclassify an innocent person as guilty; they next subject him to a guilt presumptive, accusatory interrogation that invariably involves lies about evidence and often the repeated use of implicit and explicit promises and threats as well.” From this, we can see that in some instances, investigators have already made up their mind that someone is guilty, so they do anything to get their

To begin, an article from Los Angeles Times explains, “Research developed that people under the age of the legal limit and the mentally challenged are more likely to falsely confess” (Dolan). This evidence can explain that minors and mentally challenged can feel more vulnerable during confessions and in certain situations, causing questionable responses. In addition, “Los Angeles Times” mentions, “The highly educated found that 125 cases were brought up where 40 individuals were minors, and 28 were mentally slow, after giving false confessions” (Dolan). The evidence shows that many of the victims convicted of crimes had complications during the interrogation. The victims personal state could also affect the responses made, making them either questionable or uncertain. As the leading causes of false confessions include low IQ and being under age, there are some ways that these false convictions can be

My question is who would want to confess to a crime they didn’t commit? I can understand that the pressure of the police can be a bit intense but to own up to something that you didn’t do is just I can’t wrap my mind around it, but if someone is doing this to cover for someone else then I would have to say that is completely insane. I am not sure that they know the consequences of their actions. “The Reid Technique trains officers to first ask non-accusatory questions in order to determine whether the subject is lying about their involvement in the crime.” If the officer believes that the subject is involved in the crime, then an accusatory interrogation takes place. At this stage, the officer asks questions believing that the subject is guilty and the goal is to have the subject admit guilt.” The Reid technique is one of the most used techniques that the police officers use currently. I really don’t think there are pro’s for convicted someone who didn’t do a crime that they are accused of. But looking at the cons of it, they really do outweigh the

Many people place their trust in the justice system, thinking they cannot be convicted because they are innocent. Police interrogators are allowed to use tactics like minimization where they downplay the severity of the crime in order to get their suspect to believe it is ok or even beneficial to confess. Other legal deceptions include lying about evidence, and interrogating for hours on end to wear people down to the point of needing to confess just to leave.

In the article “On the Psychology of Confessions: Does Innocent Put Innocents at Risk?” by Saul Kassin, many suspects and offenders had use false confession in their lives. Despite the fact that many will end up in jail or prison because of their false confession. A good example of this is mention in the article in the case of Tom Sawyer which he was accused for sexual assault and murder, but when going trial the judge dropped the case because they found out that he was a recover alcoholic and social anxiety disorder that causes his face to flush and embarrassed. Because of this reason the detective think it was a sign of deception during his interview. I think this phenomenon of false confession so widely spread that we don’t realize that

In the world of the criminal justice system, I think he hardest think to comprehend is how and individual would admit to a crime they did not commit. This is one way on how wrongful convictions are initiated in the Unites States. So how does someone falsely confess to a crime and get falsely convicted in the first place. I think there are several factors that come into play when someone falsely confesses to a crime. One of the biggest factors related to false confessions as described in the reading is mental health issues. Individuals who have a diminished metal capacity and those people who are not mentally stable will admit to things they did not do. In the pressure and stress of an intense, extended interrogation y will admit to committing a crime that they did not commit. That

This kind of interrogating strategy, makes the suspect believe that they are guilty even though they know they are innocent. Usually people who confess to crimes they didn’t

Greenfeld, Lawrence A. 1997. Sex Offenses and Offenders An Analysis of Data on Rape and

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.

    "You keep lying!" screamed Raskolnikov, no longer able to restrain himself. "You're lying, you damned clown!" And he flung himself on Porfiry, who retired to the doorway, but without a trace of panic. "I understand everything, everything!" He approached Porfiry. "You're lying and taunting me so Ill give myself away-" "You can't give yourself away any more than you have already, Rodion Romanovich, old man. Why, you've gone into a state. Don't shout, I'll call my men, sir!" (Dostoyevsky, 34)