False confessions have become more common in wrongful conviction cases (around 12% of cases according to the National Registry of Exonerations) even though some people are skeptical of the idea of confessing to a crime that an individual did not commit. Researchers have found that personal and situational risk factors such as promises of leniency increase the risk of receiving a false confession (Joselow, 2019).
The Reid Technique
Law enforcement officers use a process of multiple steps to try and receive a confession from a guilty suspect (Joselow, 2019). In the 1930’s police interrogation moved from physical intimidation to The Reid Technique (which focuses more on psychological aspects) (Joselow, 2019). The Reid Technique begins by telling officers to make “demeanor-based judgements” before they begin their interrogation, that way they can determine whether this suspect is going to be truthful (Joselow, 2019). This is supposed to establish that only those who are guilty will continue to lie but people are not very good at detecting lies so this can lead to an incorrect decision (Joselow, 2019). This is one of the first ways an innocent person can be presumed guilty during the process of an interrogation. After the initial pre-interrogation questions, suspects read their Miranda rights, which gives them the option to not speak or to seek an attorney (Joselow, 2019). Once these rights have been established, law enforcement officers begin to perform a “guilt-presumptive interrogation”, using coercive techniques (Joselow, 2019). It is suggested that the officers use pressure and explain that there are benefits if they do confess to the crime (Joselow, 2019). This right here could be very confusing for someone who does not understand how the system works and are overwhelmed by the situation and wish for the interrogation to just end.
Issues With This Technique
The Reid Technique encourages law enforcement to not give suspects key information in order to accurately analyze a suspect (Joselow, 2019). However, it has been found that suspects who give a false confession often have given information about the crime that has occurred that only the criminal or law enforcement could have known (Joselow, 2019). This is a major factor when it comes to looking at false confessions which also involves some sort of official misconduct.
Situation Factors
There are also other situational factors that can lead to a false confession (Joselow, 2019):
-
The use of threat or physical punishment (violence, deprivation of food or sleep)
-
The anxiety that may come with being in custody and in isolation
-
The psychological methods that are used can make a suspect feel like they need to confess to the alleged crime
-
The psychological methods that use consequences of promises and threats also can cause an innocent person to confess. This would create the idea that the person could benefit more from confessing than continuing to testify about their innocence (a coerced-compliant confession).
Personal Risks
Personal risks also contribute to an innocent person admitting to a crime that they did not commit. Mental disorders, irregular mental states, low intellectual functioning and other personality traits are all traits that have a higher probability of complying in an interrogation (Joselow, 2019). Juveniles are also prone to confessing to a crime that they did not commit due to their vulnerability and simple-mindedness (Joselow, 2019). Finally, a person may commit to a crime that they did not commit because they believe in the reliability of the criminal justice system and that eventually the truth will come out and everyone will get what they deserve (Joselow, 2019). So, many personal aspects can contribute to the question of why an innocent person would testify their guilt.
Promises Of Leniency
Promises of leniency are another large contributor to an innocent individual giving law enforcement a false confession. Although promises of leniency is a major issue in false confessions, it is typically difficult to determine when this occurs (Joselow, 2019). A confession would be considered invalid when there is a clear case of coercion (Joselow, 2019). This is easy to identify when a law enforcement officer describes a certain benefit the suspect would receive by testifying compared to when an officer only hints at the fact that a confession could lead to certain benefits (Joselow, 2019). However, since these promises of leniency are difficult to acknowledge in court, an innocent person can be given a guilty verdict. When a promise of leniency is able to be acknowledged, the general population often does not understand how much of an effect these practices have (Joselow, 2019). One study looked at how students viewed promises of leniency and found that when viewing an interrogation that involved a promise of leniency, the students found the methods less coercive than a threat of harm, even though the harm that was done was equivalent (Joselow, 2019). This study shows that the public is not aware of the other improper interrogation methods that law enforcement may participate in, and therefore making it even more difficult to detect these practices. Even when a person can recognize a promise of leniency, they often still find it difficult to reach a verdict (Joselow, 2019). Studies show that even though a jury may find the confession inadmissible, they still return with a guilty verdict (Joselow, 2019). There are many problems with an interrogation involving promises of leniency, and even when it is recognized, the person is still found guilty. People should be informed of these incorrect practices so that when there is a promise of leniency, there is a common understanding of the impact of a promise of leniency and can use that understanding to interpret how the confession should be viewed.
Types Of False Confessions
Additionally, there are two types of false confessions: coerced-compliant false confessions and coerced internalized false confessions (Scott-Hayward, 2007). When a coerced-complaint false confession occurs, the individual who gave the confession usually tries to take back their confession soon after he/she confesses (Scott-Hayward, 2007). When a coerced internalized confession occurs, the individual who gave the confession begins to believe that he/she actually did commit the crime (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Interrogations can have a serious psychological effect on innocent individuals and it effects each person in a different way.
Juveniles And False Confessions
A study was done by Steven Drizin and Richard Leo which looked at 125 false confessions between 1971 and 200 (Scott-Hayward, 2007). This study found that of the 125 people, who were found to have given a false confession, 63% of them were under the age of 25 (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Studies in social and neurology show that even though adolescents develop at different rates, adults tend to be more mature than juveniles (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Studies show that adolescents are less risk averse than adults, more impulsive, and adolescents are more likely to be influenced by their peers and adults (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Adolescents choices typically reflect the idea that they want to comply with authoritarian figures (Scott-Hayward, 2007). The desire to comply with a person in authority can be reflected in an interrogation. Since adolescents are less future oriented and they base their decisions on short-term consequences rather than long term-consequences also impact juveniles and interrogation (Scott-Hayward, 2007).
Ways A Juvenile May Respond:
There are two ways in which a juvenile may respond to an interrogation. One way that psychological developments effect a juvenile during interrogation is when he/she decides to waive their Miranda rights (Scott-Hayward, 2007). An adolescent’s psychological developments can also affect how they might respond to the techniques an officer uses during the interrogation (Scott-Hayward, 2007).
Miranda Rights:
Miranda rights says that the suspect being interrogated must “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” waive their right to remain silent (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Although this tries to protect an individual’s right to understand their right to remain silent, it does not define the circumstances in which a juvenile knowingly waived their rights. The court case Fare v. Michael C., created circumstances that should be considered when determining if the juvenile knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived their Miranda rights (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Some of these circumstances include: the juveniles age, experience, education, background, intelligence, the ability to understand warning, the meaning of their 5th Amendment rights and what the consequences are of waiving those rights (Scott-Hayward, 2007). With this, juveniles still may not fully understand what it means to waive their rights, they may think that if they do waive their rights, they would be able to go home sooner (Scott-Hayward, 2007). This shows that even though there are some measure that have been put into place to try and protect adolescents, they are still not fully educated in the waiver of their rights and due to their psychological developments, may just waive their rights because they think it is smarter and will make the interrogation end.
Waiving Rights:
If an adolescent agrees to waive their rights, the interrogation process is completed the same as it would if the suspect was an adult (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Interrogations typically take place in a two-step process: an interview which determines guilt and then an interrogation which persuades the suspect to give their confession (Scott-Hayward, 2007). During an interrogation, police officers are permitted to use deception as a technique (Scott-Hayward, 2007). This type of technique can easily confuse a juvenile who is unsure of the law. One of the ways law enforcement may deceive a suspect is by misrepresenting the seriousness of the crime that happened, making vague promises (Scott-Hayward, 2007). One of the main reasons that adolescents confess to a crime that they did not commit is because they believe that once they give information to the officer that they want to hear, they will be allowed to go home (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Interrogation practices can be psychologically confusing for adults and especially adolescents who are still developing.
Eighth Amendment:
Although police interrogation techniques are used in the same way on adult and juvenile suspects, it can be argued that this goes against the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment rights. This eighth amendment right recognizes that adults and adolescents cannot have the same sentences to crimes because they are fundamentally different (Spierer, 2017). It describes how juveniles should be treated in the criminal justice system (Spierer, 2017). This idea became apparent in the Supreme Court in 2005 in Roper v. Simmons which determined that someone who is under 18 cannot be sentenced to the death penalty (Spierer, 2017). The majority opinion says that there are three key differences between an adolescent and an adult: juveniles have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility which leads to improper decisions, juveniles are more prone to negative influences and pressures and a juvenile not having their character fully developed (Spierer, 2017). With this in mind, it is hard to understand why juveniles continue to be interrogated in the same way as an adult would be but it furthers our understanding in why a false confession may result from such an interrogation.