Essay On False Confessions

I. The Problem of False Confessions

A false confession takes place when an individual admits to a crime that he or she has not committed. Current approaches to criminal law place confessions as the ultimate form of proof of guilt. Amounting to the point where confessions were and are often given prominence over other DNA or physical evidence that even indicates innocence. The deference given to a confession lies in the assumption that no person, short of being tortures would admit guilt for a crime they did not commit.

(A) Types of False Confessions

Kassin and Wrightsman classified false confessions into three types: voluntary, coerced, complkiant and coerced-internalized. The types of false confessions have only been modified and expanded

However, in the adversarial system, and through the techniques most utilized by law enforcement these methods are often lost and replaced by collaborative storytelling.

There is an assumption that an interrogation and effectively a confession is over once a suspect states “I did it.” More signals pre-admission is over, but a simple “I did it” does not suffice for a conviction. Here lies where the presumption that one who admitted to the crime actually committed the crime. If a simple “I did it” is not sufficient, and they stated facts, specifically facts unknown to the general public, how else would they have come to know that information if not for committing the crime. Here lies the problem that must be resolved. Because although inquiries into voluntariness and coercion at trial provide a quality control over pre-admission conduct on the police, they do little to manage post-admission conduct. That is the construction of the