False Confessions
False confessions are admissions of guilt made by suspects who have not committed the crime in question, and they present a significant challenge within the American legal system. These confessions can undermine the integrity of judicial processes, as they often carry more weight than other forms of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony. Research indicates that approximately one-quarter of individuals exonerated through DNA evidence or recanted testimony had previously confessed to crimes they did not commit. False confessions can be categorized into three types: voluntary, coerced, and internalized. Voluntary confessions occur without coercion, often to protect someone else or seek attention. Coerced confessions arise from prolonged and stressful interrogations, while internalized confessions involve suspects convincing themselves of their guilt, sometimes due to psychological pressure.
Various factors contribute to false confessions, including the intensity and nature of police interrogation techniques, which can involve sleep deprivation and physical duress. Vulnerable populations, such as minors or individuals with limited understanding of the legal process, are particularly at risk of being manipulated into confessing. Efforts to mitigate false confessions include videotaping interrogations and requiring suspects to provide detailed accounts in court when entering plea bargains. Despite these measures, overturning a conviction based on a false confession remains challenging, as courts generally demand new evidence for exoneration.
On this Page
Subject Terms
False Confessions
The confession of guilt is the cornerstone of due process in the US legal system. A suspect’s uncoerced admission of guilt in committing a felony, most often given to police investigators, carries more weight at trial than evidence and/or eyewitness testimony. If there are questions concerning the validity of such a confession, however, the integrity of the judicial process is undercut. Although the exact number of such false confessions is, of course, impossible to determine, reliable data gathered by the Innocence Project, a legal advocacy group, reveals that one-quarter of convicted felons ultimately freed through DNA evidence or recanted testimony had originally confessed to the crime. Legal watchdogs study the psychology of false confessions to ensure that such bogus testimony does not invalidate the judicial process.
Overview
Researchers investigating police interrogation techniques have defined three broad types of false confessions: voluntary false confessions, in which a suspect admits guilt without coercion, most often to protect someone or to secure the possibility of notoriety; coerced false confessions, in which a suspect confesses as a way to end a lengthy, stressful interrogation or as a way to earn some reward, such as food or sleep; and internalized false confessions, in which the suspect comes to believe in their guilt, due to either their own psychological trauma or heavily biased interrogation techniques by police.
Although police states, theocratic governments, and military interrogators during wartime have long used enhanced interrogation techniques to extract false confessions from those viewed as enemies of the state as a way to secure usable propaganda, the reality of false confessions in the course of the more conventional exercise of the judicial process raises difficult questions about why suspects would confess to crimes they did not commit. When police interrogators are convinced of a suspect’s guilt, they endorse techniques designed to elicit the confession. Suspects may endure an increasingly intolerable interrogation environment, including long hours of redundant questioning; deprivation of sleep, food, and water; uncomfortable seating; and physical duress or the threat of bodily harm. Sometimes the suspect has limited mental capabilities or limited familiarity with the judicial process and can be easily misled to a bogus confession. Minors are easily manipulated by experienced interrogators, as are intoxicated suspects questioned while still under the influence who may later have limited recollection of the interrogation.
Overturning a conviction even with a recanted false confession is extremely rare, because courts often require new evidence to prove innocence or the confession of the true perpetrator. Some law enforcement units have taken measures to minimize false confessions. Police interrogations are routinely videotaped (although that practice has led to numerous controversial studies on what camera angles do not corrupt the process), and suspects, if their confessions lead to a plea bargain, must provide an allocution in court concerning the specific details of the crime to ensure reliable confessions.
Bibliography
Garrett, Brandon L. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2011. Print.
Gudjonsson, Gisli H. The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook. Hoboken: Wiley, 2003. Print.
Kassin, Saul M. “False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 17.4 (2008): 249–53. Print.
Lassiter, G. Daniel, and Christian A. Meissner, eds. Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations. Washington: APA, 2010. Print.
Leo, Richard A. Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.
Petro, Jim, and Nancy Petro. False Justice: Eight Myths That Convict the Innocent. Rev. ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.
Scheck, Barry, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer. Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right. Rev. ed. New York: NAL, 2003. Print.
Warden, Rob, and Steven A. Drizin, eds. True Stories of False Confessions. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 2009. Print.