The (Innocent) Guilty One
Author: Meg Fansler
Would you confess to a crime you didn’t commit? Most, if not all, would say no. However, according to the Innocence Project, many of the 360 wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved a false confession. It is astonishing the number of cases that have surfaced involving innocent people who confessed and were convicted, only later to be exonerated.
When investigating a crime, law enforcement must gather and integrate many components into a timeline of the events before a responsible individual can be convicted. Special skills and training are necessary to collect these components, such as DNA evidence, computer forensics, and witness statements. The most integral piece of information law enforcement must acquire are facts. Along with facts, many might argue that a confession is an important piece of the investigation, and it is, as long as it isn’t a false confession. Law enforcement must encourage a truthful and thorough confession from an individual suspected of a crime. When special care is not taken to obtain this type of confession, a false confession can destroy many innocent lives by locking up an innocent person and leaving the guilty person in the community.
Simply put, a false confession is an admission to a criminal act that the confessor did not commit. Individuals in an interrogation room may be motivated to give a false confession for various reasons. There are three main types of false confessions: voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized. A voluntary false confession is when an innocent person self-incriminates without any influence from law enforcement (Kassin, 2015). This type of false confession is common when an individual wants notoriety for a high-profile crime or wants to protect someone else. The second type of false confession, coerced-compliant, occurs when an individual gives a false confession for some gain or appeases law enforcement (Kassin, 2015). Law enforcement may convince individuals that if they confess, they will be rewarded or end the interrogation's discomfort. Finally, a coerced-internalized false confession is when, throughout the interrogation, an individual comes to doubt their innocence and confesses fabricated evidence that supports their guilt due to the deception used against them by law enforcement (Kassin, 2015). Fortunately, coerced-internalized false confessions are the least common.
Research has identified populations that are more susceptible to providing a false confession. This research has informed law enforcement about implementations to protect these populations and individuals in the interrogation room. Juveniles and the mentally disabled have been shown to fare worse in interrogation settings. Due to their limited understanding and mental capacity, these two populations can find themselves confused, unable to cope under pressure, and manipulated by law enforcement. Therefore, law enforcement must be educated about these populations’ vulnerabilities and take measures to protect them from exploitation and the subsequent legal consequences of their false confession.
Solutions suggested for law enforcement include behavioral changes that law enforcement can make to changes in the interrogations structure. For example, a modern interrogation technique named the PEACE Technique has been suggested to replace the common and controversial Reid Technique. The acronym PEACE stands for each step of the process: Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluate. In this technique, the suspect relays their account of the event without responses from the interrogator. After their account is told in full, the interrogator is allowed to identify contradictions and introduce questions. This process may reduce the misleading aspect of standard interrogations when the suspect can give their story in a continuous train of thought. The room can also be adjusted to reduce misleading behaviors and hold both parties accountable. All interrogation rooms are equipped with recording devices. The best practice in interrogations is to have video recording devices directed toward both the suspect and the interrogator. With video evidence, it is simple for a jury or judge to prove if non-verbal manipulation tactics were utilized in the interrogation, leading to a false confession. Furthermore, the interrogation procedure can be structured to reduce fatigue and confusion by introducing breaks throughout the interrogation and limiting the number of hours a suspect can be held in an interrogation room. Implementing these simple changes in interrogations can reduce false confessions.
For an investigation, the confession could hold a great amount of weight and might be highly desired. Unfortunately, juries are not skilled in understanding if a confession is truthful or coerced. It is crucial for both legal professionals and the public who may find themselves on the jury to be cognizant of the techniques that may have been used against a suspect in the interrogation and how those behaviors may have led to the confession. Recommendations continue to be made, but what has been implemented so far is successful. Law enforcement must follow these suggestions to ensure they get a truthful confession from the individual.
References
Kassin, S. (2015). The social psychology of false confessions. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 25-51.
Ashleigh Diserio Consulting works with individuals and organizations, assisting them in gleaning insight into a person’s life, motivation, and past and future behavior, so certain areas of behavior can be understood with a high degree of accuracy. We provide services in the areas of criminal and intelligence investigations, management support, threat assessment, insider threat support, and education and training.