Pros And Cons Of Police-Induced False Confessions
Why would someone confess to something they did not do?
Although there are several reasons that people confess to a crime they did not commit, two of the most common is mental and psychological exhaustion. First, when a suspect is kept in interrogation for numerous hours, they have the tendency to say and agree with whatever the interrogator says. “Innocent suspects confess because they are terrified, confused and exhausted; because they are deceived or tricked; because they don’t understand what they are doing; and because they feel hopeless, helpless and isolated”(Gross &Possley). Second, officers who conduct “modern” interrogations may lie about the evidence and tell the suspect that his fingerprints were found at the scene; that a codefendant already confessed and put the blame on him; that he was seen by an eyewitness. They routinely say that they already have him dead to rights and that this is his only chance to tell his side of the story and help …show more content…
his cause; that the victim must have provoked him; that what he did is understandable.
How can the criminal justice system protect against false confession?
The National Registry of Exonerations has collected data on 1,810 exonerations in the United States since 1989 (as of June 7, 2016). They include 227 cases of innocent men and women who confessed, 13 percent of the total, all after receiving Miranda warnings (at least according to the police). Nearly three-quarters of those false confessions were homicide cases.
Police-induced false confessions are among the leading causes of wrongful convictions.
There are two doctrines in the criminal law designed to keep illegally obtained confessions from the jury. The first is the Miranda warnings designed to establish procedural safeguards to protect a suspect from unknowingly incriminating himself. The second is the voluntariness requirement that prevents coerced confessions from reaching the jury. “ However, these rules govern the admissibility of a confession into evidence only; they cannot be relied upon to determine false from true confessions. To combat false confessions and wrongful convictions, innocent defendants must turn to social scientists and expert witnesses to present evidence on the dynamics of false confessions. Since the DNA exonerations by the Innocence Project have conclusively proven the innocence of some confessed offenders, social scientists have been able to examine false confessions in more detail. Their work has raised novel questions”
(Cornell).
The criminal justice system needs to hold all personnel involved with obtaining confession accountable. If they have to make an example out of someone, they need to do it.
Although there are several reasons that people confess to a crime they did not commit, two of the most common is mental and psychological exhaustion. First, when a suspect is kept in interrogation for numerous hours, they have the tendency to say and agree with whatever the interrogator says. “Innocent suspects confess because they are terrified, confused and exhausted; because they are deceived or tricked; because they don’t understand what they are doing; and because they feel hopeless, helpless and isolated”(Gross &Possley). Second, officers who conduct “modern” interrogations may lie about the evidence and tell the suspect that his fingerprints were found at the scene; that a codefendant already confessed and put the blame on him; that he was seen by an eyewitness. They routinely say that they already have him dead to rights and that this is his only chance to tell his side of the story and help …show more content…
his cause; that the victim must have provoked him; that what he did is understandable.
How can the criminal justice system protect against false confession?
The National Registry of Exonerations has collected data on 1,810 exonerations in the United States since 1989 (as of June 7, 2016). They include 227 cases of innocent men and women who confessed, 13 percent of the total, all after receiving Miranda warnings (at least according to the police). Nearly three-quarters of those false confessions were homicide cases.
Police-induced false confessions are among the leading causes of wrongful convictions.
There are two doctrines in the criminal law designed to keep illegally obtained confessions from the jury. The first is the Miranda warnings designed to establish procedural safeguards to protect a suspect from unknowingly incriminating himself. The second is the voluntariness requirement that prevents coerced confessions from reaching the jury. “ However, these rules govern the admissibility of a confession into evidence only; they cannot be relied upon to determine false from true confessions. To combat false confessions and wrongful convictions, innocent defendants must turn to social scientists and expert witnesses to present evidence on the dynamics of false confessions. Since the DNA exonerations by the Innocence Project have conclusively proven the innocence of some confessed offenders, social scientists have been able to examine false confessions in more detail. Their work has raised novel questions”
(Cornell).
The criminal justice system needs to hold all personnel involved with obtaining confession accountable. If they have to make an example out of someone, they need to do it.