False Confessions and Influenced Witnesses as Pertains to Interviewing and Interrogation - Case Study Example

False Confessions and Influenced Witnesses as Pertains to Interviewing and Interrogation Introduction One of the most important aims of a police interrogation is obtaining a confession. It is estimated that over 80 percent of solved criminal cases are solved by way of confession. However, a huge number of confessions resulting in wrongful convictions are obtained by coercive questioning. Quite often, a confession is regarded as the most unequivocal evidence of guilt in that it erases doubts in the minds of juror and doubts compared to any other evidence. The evidence of confession is thought to be the most damaging form of evidence produced at a trial in criminal law. It is also a prosecutor’s most compelling weapon (Kassim & Sukel, 1997). A conviction is possible by confession evidence alone. In the process of police interrogation, obtaining a confession is one of the most important aims. A study by Zimbardo (1967) approximated that of the criminal cases solved by the police, over 80 percent are solved by confession. Confessions are a very dominant form of evidence. This is possibly due to observers misattributing the cause of the confession as being internal to the confessor while disregarding situational factors, for instance a possible coercion which may not be apparent to an observer (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). The big question, however, is whether all confessions are authentic. How are we sure that all suspected individuals give true confessions out of their own wish, without duress during the police interrogations? For instance, in Britain, false confessions rank secondly only to mistaken identities as a cause of wrongful conviction among the cases referred to the Court of Appeal. It is unclear how often false confessions result in wrongful convictions. Scholars, however, agree that enough cases have been documented to raise an eyebrow over such a risk. Leo (1998) states three possible reasons why it may be hard to approximate the prevalence of false confessions. They are: The investigations are conducted in secrecy and may not be recorded. The law enforcement agencies don’t keep clear records on the number of interrogations conducted, and It is hard to know what actually occurred to elicit a confession, especially if it resulted in a conviction. That people confess to things they have not done is without question, nor is the potential for people to make false statements, intentional or otherwise against another. Interrogation and interviewing The interrogation procedure and interview tactics used the police have changed over the years. Usually, interrogation is not the first step in an investigation. It is not in question, though, that it can be the last substantial step in an investigation. In the process of an investigation, those involved collect scientific evidence as well as human evidence. For instance, witness statements, eyewitness statements, and collateral statements are collected. At this stage, “interviews” and “interrogation” are treated as different enterprises. Law enforcement and interrogation training manuals claim interviews are non-custodial (for example, the subject is free to leave at any time), information-gathering procedures. Similarly, interrogations involve information gathering, though, they are geared more towards the theme development and fact confirmation. They occur in custodial settings since the subject may not leave until told he is free to do so. Inbau et al. recommend before an interrogation is carried out, there should be an interview, its purpose being the development of facts, establishing rapport and gaining knowledge of the suspect. The difference between interrogation and interview, while are very clear for the law enforcement workers, is taken the wrong way by most lay people. Brandl (2004) states that interviews are any questioning or other interaction that is intended to produce information regarding a particular crime or regarding a person believed to be responsible for a crime. Interviews are usually non accusatory and have the goal of developing information to move a criminal investigation forward. (p. 200) Brandl then defines interrogation as any questioning or other action that is intended to elicit incriminating information from a suspect when this information is intended to be used in a criminal prosecution. Interrogations of subjects are usually conducted when the subject is in the custody of the police (i.e., custodial interrogation). “Custody” exists when the suspect is under the physical control of the police and when the suspect is not free to leave. The police may also conduct noncustodial interrogations of a suspect. This occurs when the suspect voluntarily accompanies the police and when the suspect is told that he is not under arrest and is free to leave at any time (California v. Behler, 1983)… In contrast to interviews, interrogations are usually more of a process of testing already developed information than of actually developing information. (p. 235) Inbau et al. notes that Miranda warnings are appropriate in custodial settings and are not required in interview settings. Some experts, however, argue that being asked to come to the police station would be equivalent for the person under suspicion (Drizin & Colgan, 2004). An Overview of False Confessions About four centuries ago, a confession was treated as a conviction. Use of physical torture to get information was common, and all confessions were admitted into evidence without any question. Over time, however, the status of confessions in the legal system has shifted from courts limiting the admissibility into evidence of confessions, to totally excluding coerced confessions. Recently courts have become cynical of all confessions and tend to dismiss them if they raise doubt. In the beginning of the 1900s, Courts in the U.S were faced with cases of Black defendants who were said to have ‘confessed’ to crimes after a physical beating by the police. An important case was Brown v. Mississippi (1936), in which a landmark decision was delivered. In the case, three Black men were arrested by the police for murder. The men were barred from consulting an attorney and later threatened, tortured and beaten. Each of them eventually signed a police written ‘confession’ to the murder. Each defendant, after conviction, was sentenced to death. Later, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions, stating that the police had violated the defendants’ rights to due process of law. It ruled that evidence procured through brutality and physical torture be excluded from the trials. The Court further asserted that a trial “is a mere pretence where the state authorities have continued a conviction resting solely upon confessions obtained by violence” (p. 287). A confession must thus, be given freely and knowingly. Kassin (1997) claims that the admissibility of confession evidence is preceded by the requirement that the confession is proved to be voluntary. In deciding whether to admit the confession of evidence, the Courts consider other factors such as mental abuse in addition to threats and physical force. In the Chambers v. Florida (1940) case, the Supreme Court ruled that five days of prolonged questioning elicited concerns that the confessions given by the defendants were in danger of being false. In another case of Haynes v. Washington (1963), a further investigation was required to establish whether the circumstances surrounding the confessions were tallying. The defendant couldn’t have a telephone contact with his family and his attorney was told that these requests might be granted once he made a statement. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was coerced. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the court ruled that unless the accused is advised by the police of his constitutional right to remain silent and to obtain counsel, all self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court. Procedural considerations Challengers of inappropriate and questionable police interrogation and investigative procures argue that a false confession is as a result of police incompetence and viciousness. This view asserts that in attempting to elicit confessions from the suspects, interrogators may use outright lies and other forms of deception (Underwager & Wakenfield, 1992). Even the most widely used textbook on police interrogations, Inbau, Reid, and Buckley’s Criminal Interrogations and Confessions encourages and goes ahead to describe a step by step process by which interrogators are to elicit a confession from a suspect by way of deceit and psychological manipulation. For instance Inbau et al. suggests telling the suspects that they have evidence linking them to the crime whereas none exists. The also encourage minimizing the seriousness of the offense by saying “anyone else under similar circumstances might have done the same thing” (p. 97). This means “police officers are encouraged to make a false confession in order to obtain a confession from a suspect” (Gudjons, 1994, p. 239). Reliance on methods for detecting deception (for example, nonverbal behaviour) offered in police training manuals is another problematic area during interrogations. For instance, an interrogating officer may perceive a suspect as being deceptive while this may be completely untrue. A research has asserted that people, even those with special training, are poor at detecting deception (Shuy, 1998). Thus, Inbau et al. (1986), suggest using the aforesaid methods on suspects who appear to be guilty based on the methods for detecting deceptions as describe in the manual. Overzealousness and negligence on the part of the prosecutors may lead to false confessions. For instance, Gardner (1995) tells of a case in which he took part, where a young the prosecution decided that a woman was abusing boys sexually, on the basis of a rumour and an anonymous tip. The supposed victims were taken into police custody and told they would not be released till they ‘confessed’ about the sexual assault about the sexual abuses by the lady. Two reasons why prosecutors abuse their power are advanced (Yang, 1991). First, American courts have been structured as an adversarial system such that the focus is on winning the case at any cost. The search for truth is lost. Second, for re-election and other professional advancement reasons, many prosecutors want to maintain a high rate of convictions. Additionally, prosecutors my experience pressure for a political necessity to close a case. This occurs in high profile case where there is usually a public outcry for justice. Type of false confessions Why would an innocent suspect confess to a crime he or she did not confess? There is something about a police interrogation that at times compels an innocent person to incriminate himself or herself. Kassim and Wrighsman (1985) put forward three psychologically distinct types of false confessions. Voluntary false confessions This is a self-incriminating statement that is offered by purpose in the absence of pressure by the police interrogators. The suspects who give a voluntary statement have an operating mind and appreciate the consequences of their action. Usually, this renders the statement inadmissible in court if the suspect in questions doesn’t have an operating mind. Several reasons why people give voluntary confessions have been put forward. For example, a need for famed and recognition or a “morbid desire for notoriety” (Note, 1953) may drive people to give false confession in case that get wide public attention. An example is a case in which a man falsely confessed to a murder to impress his girlfriend (Radelet et al., 1992). False confessions may also be offered to protect a relative or friend, a fact rampant with the juvenile defenders. An example is a case where an innocent husband, when held together with wife, may confess to allow the wife to return home to tend to the children. Coerced-compliant false confessions This type of confession occurs when the suspects confess, despite being aware of their innocence, due to extreme methods of police interrogation. Numerous confessions that involve the use of threats and torture are presumed to be of this type. The classic example of a coerced-compliant false confession is the Brown v. Mississippi case. Confessions were made by American POWs in the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Coerced-internalized false confession This is when the suspects, who are innocent, but fatigued, anxious, confused, or pressured, and then subjected to high suggestive methods of investigation, come to believe that they committed the crime. The frightening part about this type of confession, however, is that the innocent’s person memory may be altered, making its “original contents potentially irretrievable.” (Kassin, 1997, p. 226). These types of cases have two factors in common, namely: A suspect who is vulnerable The presentation of false evidence e.g. a rigged polygraph Coerced-compliant false confessions can be explained by the innocent’s suspect’s wish to escape an aversive experience and ensure a pleasant consequence. Conclusion There are significant numbers of wrongful convictions in the United States. A study by Bedau and Radelet found that the primary conviction of about 49 out of the 350 cases of miscarriages of justice was a false confession obtained by coercive police questioning. How often false confessions result in wrongful convictions is unknown. Undoubtedly, there are social and psychological factors that influence innocent suspects to give self-incriminating false statements such as suggestibility. Deceit and deception, combined with other inappropriate and questionable police investigative and interrogative procedures seem to be common and continue to be used during interrogative processes. An unspecified number of false confessions maybe attributed to the inherently coercive nature on the process of police interrogation, during which deceitful and deceptive practises are used and approved by the judicial system. References Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Standford Law Review, 40, 21-179. Brandl, S. G. (2004). Criminal investigation: An analytical perspective. Boston,MA: Pearson: Allyn and Bacon. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 277 (1940). Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963). Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions. (3rd ed.).Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221 233. Leo, R. A. (1998). Miranda and the problem of false confessions. In R. A. Leo & G. C. Thomas III Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence. Boston: Northeastern University Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1992). False confessions and police deception. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(3), 163-174. Yant, M. (1991). Presumed guilty: When innocent people are wrongly convicted. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Read More