False Confessions

A false confession is the act of admitting to a crime that the accused is not guilty of.

They are one of the leading causes for wrongful convictions in America. In fact, 20 to 25% of people exonerated by DNA analysis had admitted to a crime they did not commit (White, 2003). It is important to note the taxonomy proposed by Kassin & Wrightsman, that puts forward three types of confessions: voluntary, where a person confesses under no influence of external pressures, coerced-compliant, where the subject confesses only to escape an aversive interrogation, to avoid threat or harm, or to perceive benefits and finally coerced-internalized, where the subject genuinely believes they are guilty of the offense (Kassin & Wrightsman 1985). Rogers and Mitchell (1991) noted that one who gives a voluntary confession must have an operating mind that appreciates the consequences of their act, only in cases where they do not have an operating mind then the statement is inadmissible in court.

A confession is, if not the most, powerful weapon for the prosecution. In criminal law, the exoneree falsely confesses if (1) he or she made a false statement to authorities which was treated as a confession, (2) the authorities claimed that the exoneree made such a statement but the exoneree denied it, or (3) the exoneree made a statement that was not an admission of guilt, but was misinterpreted as such by the authorities. The first instance of false confessions can be traced back to the 1936 case of Brown v. Mississippi. This rule created the law that an involuntary confession coerced by police hostility cannot be admissible as evidence. A coerced confession violates the Due Process Clause, which says the state must respect all legal rights of a person, of the 14th amendment.

In psychology the first mention of false confessions was in Munsterberg’s (1908) classical book “On the Witness Stand”, even though this problem has long been recognized the mechanisms and the extent of the problem were unclear. Philip Zimbardo (1967) was one of the first to provide a social psychological perspective, stating that a false confession mitigated by police is nothing more than a result of police incompetence and police viciousness. According to Kassin (2008) there are three processes that lead to false confessions. Firstly police tend to target innocent people due to judgement errors of truth and deception. Secondly, innocent people confess as a result of aggressive interrogation tactics. Thirdly, jurors tend to discredit confessions even if they appear to be coerced. The last point is fundamental as it is directly linked to the evaluation process that determines whether a confession is forced or not.

Kassin (2014) found that the risk of a false confession is higher for impressionable subjects such as juveniles or people with cognitive impairments. Through the use of lawful interrogation tactics such as lengthy isolation, lies about evidence and minimization tactics that imply leniency.

Research

Whereas in high profile cases people tend to falsely confess without coercion (voluntary false confessions) in order to receive attention, self-punishment, to protect another person or for tangible gain (Kassim, 2008), people are usually coerced during an interrogation leading to a coerced compliant confession. It is counter intuitive for a person to falsely confess to a crime, but this discrepancy can be explained by conformity and obedience studies, such as the Milgram (1967) studies where social influence was high enough for people to inflict 400v shocks to others. According to the Criminal Interrogations and Confessions there are specific techniques taught to enforcement agencies for interrogation to obtain confessions (Inbau, 2013). This manual excessively tells readers to rely on the understanding behavioral attitudes, verbal and non-verbal cues. In a study performed by Kassin & Fong (1999) they found that students could not distinguish between videos of innocent and guilty defendants, and when they repeated the study with detectives once again they found similar results as they were also influenced by first impressions and were seen making incorrect prejudgments of guilt.

So why are innocent people targeted? Innocence in itself can be an important cause as a genuine suspect will waive their Miranda rights and talk to the officer, believing that nothing can be used against them because they are innocent. The common thought process that happens here is that the suspect truly believes that truth and justice will prevail and that no matter what they say it will not be used against them because they know that they are innocent. In some cases the presumption of guilt is made when a suspect under investigation flees, even if they are innocent, creating this presumption.

Other systems such as effects of reward and punishment, human decision making, memory and forgetting, self-regulation, social influence, social perception, childhood and adolescence, personality and psychopathology (Kassin, 2014). Even the definition of guilt canbe linked to obedience and power dynamics as it is the “guilt-presumptive social interaction led by an authority figure” (Eades, 2010).

The psychoanalytical perspective suggests that false confessions are made due to the unconscious, compulsive need to confess, where the confession itself gratifies the need for punishment (Reik, 1959). Other needs that can be fulfilled by falsely confessing are those for attention, which Note (1953) coined as a “morbid desire for notoriety”.

Kassin (1997) found that coerced-internalized confessions strongly depend on the preying of a suspect who is vulnerable and highly suggestible. Such individuals are triggered by the presentation of false evidence. People who are more susceptible to suggestions from police tend to have lower intelligence, poor memories, low self-esteem and high anxiety. (Gudjonsson, 1991).

Some groups of people have been shown to confess more commonly than others: youth, intellectually disabled and people with disorders such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, depression or are delusional (Gudjonsson, 2003) Although studies showing incidence between juvenile trials and confessions have not been made, many researchers have assumed these two come hand in hand. This can be due to the immaturity of judgement that they show and can be seen in the way that they lack impulse control, delaying gratification and discounting methods for delaying these rewards.

Suggestions on which personalities are most likely to confess have been made focusing on the personality traits that would make them more likely to comply under this kind of pressure. In fact it has been shown that males and Asians have higher levels of the compliance trait and therefore are more likely to confess to crimes they did not commit (Klaver, 2008).

It is very important to understand the coercion that is used to extract a confession and how it influences a suspect’s behavior. Kassin et al. (2007) found that the top interrogation techniques used by North American detectives are (in descending order): isolation from family and friends, doing the interrogation in a small room, finding contradictions in their story, gaining the subject’s trust or using evidence of guilt. Other techniques that may be used are sleep and food deprivation, sensory discomfort and threats. The Supreme Court determined in the Chambers v Florida (1940) that physical violence can even include five days of prolonged questioning and that this would lead to the confessions being unreliable.

According to the manual of interrogations used by police (Inbau & Reid, 1967) the subject must be confined to an unfamiliar room, with no windows, noise or things (except for two chairs and a table). The officer should create a sense of friendship even by minimizing the crime. The difference between minimization and maximization techniques is very important and its effects are well understood by interrogators.

Maximization techniques involve making all kinds of accusations such as interpreting denials, overriding objections and using misleading evidence (Kassin, 2014) This tactic is all used to remind the suspect that his denial is superfluous and that he is unquestionably guilty. Minimization techniques are the complete opposite as they provide a safety net for the accused. The officer might try to suggest justifications for the act (such as outside pressure, mitigating circumstances, provocations), or they might also provide compassion and understanding. This causes the suspect to lower his guard and to minimize the situation in relation to its actual seriousness making a confession seem less important/ justified than it actually is. Finally the officer may ask the suspect to repeat the story over and over again until the “suspect may come to believe that he was the central actor in the crime” (Driver, 1968).

The courts in America are based on an adversarial system, prosecutors are not searching for truth but looking to win their case. Because of this they are more likely to use deceiving techniques or even produce false new evidence. This type of deceit can alter people’s perceptions, beliefs, memories and behaviors (Kassin, 2014).

A final key aspect of false confessions, is how people tend to not discredit them. This is due to the false attribution error. This is the tendency to attribute someone’s behavior to internal causes, rather than external (situational) causes. This can be seen in trials, because as soon as a litigator adds a confession, the jury will be overwhelmed and will see this as the most powerful piece of evidence. For the majority of the population, which we can see represented in jurors, a false confessions seems impossible improbable due to common sense.

Summary

A confession is the most powerful tool that the litigator can have against someone. This is because of the fundamental attribution error. The three types of confessions, voluntary, coerced- compliant and coerced-internalized usually all have different explanations behind them. Whereas voluntary confessions are usually given by an operating mind without any coercion, coerced confessions are a product of external factors. These factors are usually caused by incompetent and vicious law enforcement. Innocent people are often targets because they believe that the truth will prevail. Power dynamics have an important part in extracting a confession, especially when the subject is much more vulnerable.

There are many risk factors such as age, intelligence, personality types and people with psychological disorders such as autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression or that experience delusions.

There are many strategies and manuals regarding how to extract a confession that involve sensory deprivation, isolation, false evidence and maximization and minimization techniques. The use of these, sometimes unethical tactics, is only exacerbated by the adversarial nature of the American judicial system which encourages people to use all possible means to win.

Recommendations

One of the first things that comes to mind is that there should be more experts involved in evaluating these confessions, the law should require them to be the deciding voice on evaluations and the veracity of the confession. More should be done other than just testifying in courts, such as assisting law makers in changing interrogation tactics (possibly making certain ones illegal) as well as the way that they influence the legal process.

There are many other parts of the interrogation process that are legal today that should be banned. This would help reduce the amount of false confessions. For example police officers should limit the duration of interrogations or provide substantial breaks during the process. Secondly, there should be no promises of leniency, such as if the subject confesses they will not be charged. This brings me to the third point which is lying and deceit.
Police officers can lie about many things such as leniency, who they are (in set-up confessions with actors) and what evidence they have. This is especially important in cases where the accused is more fragile and susceptible and just hinting that there is in confoundable evidence against them that would lead to a false coerced-internalized confession. For example cases where the suspect was induced to think that they had had amnesia during the act. Instances of this kind of deceit should be made illegal as they are going to target mostly fragile people who, in my opinion, are even less likely to have committed the crime and more likely to give a coerced-internalized confession. Finally, judges should ask for support from legal and forensic experts when deciding whether to admit a confession as evidence. These hearings should be as common as pretrial hearings for admitting informant testimonies and new forensic evidence.

There are easier ways that interrogators can be controlled and that is through cameras in the interrogation room. This will hold police responsible if they do decide to use coercive techniques solely for extracting a confession and will show the actual confession for other people to judge. The judges and jury should be informed by experts of what a false confession may be, what subjects are at risk and the mechanism behind coercive interrogation techniques.

Works Cited

White, W.S. (2003). Confessions in capital cases. University of Illinois Law Review, 2003, 979–1036. Volume 17—Number 4 253
Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. Kassin & L.
Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Brown, et al. v. State of Mississippi (1936).
Johnson, S. (2011). Place of publication not identified: Clutching Hand Books.
Münsterberg, H. (1909).. New York: Doubleday, Page.
Zimbardo,P. G. (1967). The psychology of police confessions. Psychology Today, 1 (2), 17- 20, 25-27.
Rogers, R., & Mitchell, C.N. (1991). Mental health experts and the criminal courts. Ontario, Canada: Thomson Professional.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249-253.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378
Reik, T. (1959). The compulsion to confess. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy. Chambers v Florida (1940) Note (1953). Voluntary false confessions: A neglected area in criminal administration. Indiana Law Journal, 28, 374-392.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221- 233.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The application of interrogative suggestibility to police

Sofia Wolfson
Emory University
University of Miami