False Confession Research Paper

A false confession is an “admission plus a post admission narrative of a crime that the confessor did not commit” (Leo, 2009). Research shows that individuals falsely confess to crimes that they have not committed (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Kassin et al., 2010). Interrogations have been seen to lead to false confessions, which individuals are then incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Some of these individuals are then later exonerated because of DNA evidence proving their innocence. Many of these cases are involving false confessions, which are given by individuals in coercive, police interrogations. “ In 15 to 20 percent of the DNA cases, police-induced false confessions were the primary cause of the wrongful conviction” (Leo, 2009). The

problem here may be the techniques used that produce false confessions. History shows that confessions have often been extorted to save law enforcement officials the trouble and effort of obtaining valid and independent evidence (Haynes v. Washington).
Safeguards exist to keep illegally obtained confessions out of the courtroom. The Miranda warnings exist to protect suspects from unknowingly incriminating themselves. Also, something exists called the “voluntariness requirement” which prevents coerced confessions from reaching the jury (Kassin et al., 2010). False confessions are difficult to discover because police do not typically keep records of them. It is difficult to prove the confessors innocence which makes them difficult to establish. (Kassin et al., 2010).
Different types of false confessions exist.

Voluntary false confessions, compliant false confessions, persuaded false confessions. A voluntary false confession is one that is given in the absence of police interrogation (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). These may be the result of a psychological disturbance, desire for notoriety or fame, need to expiate guilt over imagined or real acts, desire to protect a criminal, provide an alibi for a different crime, or for revenge (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). Compliant false confessions are given in agreement to police coercion or pressure. These are typically to escape from the stress of an interrogation, to take advantage of a perceived suggestion or promise of leniency, or to avoid an anticipated harsh punishment (Ofshe & Leo, 1997). Persuaded false confessions are those which occur when “ police interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and he becomes temporarily persuaded that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime, though he has no recollection of committing it (Leo, 2009). These types of false confessions cause suspects to suffer cognitive dissonance because of the accusers telling him that he committed a crime but the innocent suspect has no memory of it, so he believes that he just does not remember committing the crime. These types of false confessions occur much less than compliant false

confessions.
Three types of errors exist that can lead police interrogators into instigating false confessions. These are: misclassification error, coercion error, and contamination error. A misclassification error is an error on the police official’s part. It is when they believe that an innocent person is guilty. A coercion error is when “police use techniques that break down a suspects resistance to admitting guilt” (Hritz et al., 2010). Police make suspects feel as though there is no way out of the interrogation but to confess because of the evidence they have against them. Contamination error is when police make the suspects statements look persuasive. They will try and get the suspect to provide the answers that they are looking for by using leading questions.
Police use verbal and nonverbal cues, and behavioral attitudes to detect deception among suspects (Kassin, 2010). This is shown to be not accurate because they are not more than 60% accurate at detecting truth. Regarding why the innocent confess to crimes they did not commit could be due to psychological distress, isolation, confrontation, and minimization. Isolation causes increased anxiety and a desire to escape. Minimization is when an interrogator is sympathetic about the crime and morally justifies it, making the suspect feel like the interrogator will be lenient if they simply confess.
Confessions are the most incriminating piece of evidence against a defendant (Leo, 2009). To have a false confession would be just as incriminating against one who is innocent. Most civilians, jurors and criminal justice officials would assume that a detailed confession is true. Any other contradictory information or evidence against an innocent person who has confessed tends to be overridden by the confession (Leo & Ofshe, 1998). A confession sets the presumption of guilt among criminal justice officials, jurors, and the public eye. (Leo & Ofshe, 1998). Because of this, the confessed is treated harshly during the investigation and trial process. They are much more likely to be incarcerated before the trial, charged, pressured to plead guilty and then convicted (Leo, 2009). The existence of a confession creates confirmation and biases with officials and jurors causing them to have a negative outlook on the individual, causing them to interpret other information regarding their case in the worst way possible. For example, an eyewitness identification that would have been dismissed if there was no confession is treated as corroboration of the confessions truth. As this case moves through the criminal justice system it picks up more “collective force” and the fact that it was a false confession becomes seemingly more difficult to reverse.
This set of events begins with the police after obtaining a confession. They will typically close the investigation, mark the case as solved and not look any farther to pursue any other leads, even if the confession is inconsistent or contradictory (Leo, 2009). Even when other evidence on the case comes out about the confession being false, police will still believe that the suspect is guilty and the confession is accurate. American police interrogators are not well trained about the risks of psychological interrogation and the idea of police-induced false confession (O’Danahue, 2004). They tend to assume that all confessions are true, and therefore they are assuming that everyone who confesses is guilty. This does not take into account the fact that a confession could be coerced, or could be a false confession.
The fact that the criminal justice system tends to treat those who confess more harshly assumes that they do not take into account that an innocent person could have falsely confessed to a crime they never committed. There is some skepticism that exists with prosecutors about false confessions and they are reluctant to admit that a false confession occurred, even after there has been notable DNA evidence to establish the defendant’s innocence. Once a suspect has confessed, they are charged with the highest number of offenses, and also the highest types of offenses (Cassell & Hayman, 1996). Defense attorneys pressure suspects who confess more harshly and they pressure them to accept a plea to a lesser charge to avoid the higher sentence that will come from a jury conviction (Leo, 2009). “The confession operates as a kind of evidentiary bombshell which shatters the defense” (California V. Cahill, 1993). Judges tend to think that one who has confessed is automatically guilty and therefore they treat them like they deserve more punishment. Because judges are trained to not believe defendants claims of innocence, they rarely suppress confessions. If a case goes to trial, the jury treats a confession as a sign that the defendant is guilty rather than any other type of evidence. This happens especially in high profile cases where the confession gets a lot of publicity. In a study by Leo and Ofshe, they had 60 false confessions and they found that 73% of false confessors who went to trial were wrongfully convicted. This shows how dangerous false confessions can be in juries because they tend to blindly accept a confession as true, not taking into account any other evidence that a suspect may be innocent. Jurors fail to discount false confession evidence even when coercive methods were used to obtain the confession and other evidence exist to prove innocence (Leo, 2009).
When a confession is retracted and a suspect pleads not guilty and goes to trial, a sequence of events is set into motion. A judge must determine whether or not the confession was voluntary and if it is admissible as evidence in a courtroom. After hearing the confession, the jury determines whether they believe that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The ability that people have to distinguish whether or not a confession is true is not great, and secondly, most people believe that no one would confess to a crime that they did not commit. In a study by Kissin et. Al, they videotaped male prison inmates making true confessions to crimes they committed, and making up false confessions to crimes they did not commit. When investigators, and others viewed these tapes, the accuracy of distinguishing between the true confession and the false confession was not good. They ranged from 42% to 64% (Kassin et al., 2005). In another study by Kassin and Sukel, their results showed that confessions are very strong forms of evidence and people do not discount confessions even when they are coerced. Mock jurors were presented with either a low, high pressure confession or no confession for their controls. Those in the high- pressure control group believed that the confession was involuntary and did not influence their decision. This was the same control group that had a high conviction rate, even when participants were asked to disregard confessions that they believed were coerced. Confessions are “inherently prejudicial and highly damaging to a defendant, even if it is the product of coercive interrogation, even if it is supported by no other evidence, and even if it is ultimately proven false beyond any reasonable doubt” (Drizin & Leo, 2004, p. 959).
The Miranda Rights exist to protect suspects from situations that could produce false confessions in the U.S.

this came up through the Supreme Court Decision in Miranda v. Arizona. There was concern with the powers of the state through law enforcement overbearing “the will of citizen suspects, thus threatening their Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination” (Kissin et. Al., 2009). The court required police officers to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel before confessions. This requirement exists to separate the threatening power that the police have relative to the suspect, hopefully reducing the likeliness of coercive confessions. In cases that involved challenges to the validity of the waiver of rights, courts were required to apply a test regarding the admissibility of the confession at trial (Kassin et al., 2009). If a waiver to the rights to silence and counsel was not made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, then statements made by a defendant would be inadmissible. After the Miranda rights decision came out, Gault made these rights apply to youth who faced delinquency charges in juvenile court. Though these rights exist, no research evidence exists that they really achieved their goal. Officers do give suspects a warning before they take statements, but research does not show that confessions are more or less reliable before the Miranda rights existed. Paul Cassell, had believed that the confession and

conviction rates dropped greatly as a result of the warning and waiver requirements, and thus triggering the release of dangerous criminals (Cassell & Hayman, 1996). Others believe that this analysis was incorrect and that the declines were insubstantial if they existed (Kassin et al., 2009). Police must provide suspects a description of their rights that is understandable, and to be valid, the suspect must understand these rights. The Miranda rights clearly describe the rights which suspects must be informed of. Also, the decision includes an appendix where an example of the rights exists, but it is up to each police department to come up with a version of the rights. A study by Rogers et al. examines 560 Miranda warning forms that are used by the police in the United States. Content, format, and wording were looked at in regards to the different form used. They found that these different forms of Miranda warnings used conveyed in their messages. 32% told suspects that they could obtain legal counsel without charge. Whether or not suspects are truly aware of their rights is in question because of this.
There are certain individuals who are more likely to be coerced into making false confessions. Certain people are better able to handle the pressure, and others crack under the pressure in interrogations. “Those who are highly suggestible or compliant are more likely to confess falsely” (Leo, 2009). Those who are highly suggestible have worse memories, have low self- esteem, low levels of assertiveness, high anxiety levels, and have personality factors that make them more vulnerable to the pressure of interrogation and therefore make them more likely to deal with false confessions (Leo, 2009). Those who are very compliant have a conflict avoidant personality, and are eager to please others, especially those in authority (Gudjonsson, 2003). Those who have developmental disabilities or cognitive impairments also suffer from vulnerability to false confessions. Also in that group are juveniles and those who are mentally ill. Developmentally disabled individuals do not have the average cognitive and intellectual functioning. They have low intelligence and are generally not able to concentrate well, nor do they have good memory. They suffer from poor communication and conceptual skills. They have trouble understanding things and do not understand consequences well. This makes them very easy to manipulate by other individuals. It would also be very easy for a police officer to get them to repeat false statements or agree with them that could be incriminating, even though it is not the truth. The developmentally disabled can be compared to child. They have similar cognitive levels. It is very easy to get a child to agree to what you are saying because they are easily influenced. They also get confused by statements which they do not understand.
It is Important that false confessions are taken into account in the criminal justice system. Research shows how and why innocent people confess to serious crimes that they never committed. Reforms should be put in place to make sure suspects actually understand their Miranda rights when officials make them aware. Also, criminal justice professionals should take precautions towards the use of false confessions in court, and jury’s should be instructed on them. Police should have limits during interrogations, and individual’s lives should be held at a higher standard than winning a case. False confessions could incriminate an innocent person to life in prison. DNA exonerations do not happen to every innocent person, thus professionals must do everything in their power to keep the rate of innocent people incriminated as low as possible.