Historical Perspective
The potential for false confessions has been recognized for decades. As early as 1967, Fred Inbau and John Reid, in their work Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, highlighted the vulnerability of individuals with mental illness to false confessions and suggested methods for verifying the veracity of incriminating statements. These included checking for details withheld from the public and introducing fictitious crime elements to see if the suspect would incorporate them into their narrative. They also documented cases where confessions were deemed inadmissible due to coercion, including physical abuse, threats, and promises of leniency.
The advent of DNA exonerations has further underscored the reality of false confessions. Data from the Innocence Project reveals that approximately 28% of DNA exonerations between 1989 and 2020 involved false confessions, with a disproportionate number occurring among juveniles and individuals with mental impairments. This highlights the vulnerability of these populations. However, false confessions are not limited to the young and the mentally impaired populations.
The will of any person has the ability to be overrun. In the past, false confessions and coercion were generally limited to those under the influence, mental disabled, or juvenile suspects. However, time and investigation has shown every person is subject to coercion. Everyone is susceptible to providing a false confession. The only differences are the time and specific tactics used.
Analysis of DNA exoneration cases has shown a strong correlation between coercive interrogation practices and false confessions. Many of the confessions were given by subjects outside of those groups believed to be susceptible.
Primary Causes and Contributing Factors to False Confessions
Several factors can contribute to false confessions:
- Physical Abuse and Threats of Harm: Physical abuse or threats thereof are unequivocally coercive and can lead innocent individuals to confess to escape further harm. Numerous court cases have deemed confessions obtained under such duress inadmissible.
- Threats of Inevitable Consequences: Threats targeting a suspect’s family or other valued aspects of their life can induce a false confession out of fear and desperation.
- Promises of Leniency: Offering inducements, such as a reduced sentence or avoiding arrest, in exchange for a confession can incentivize false admissions. While informing a suspect of potential penalties is permissible, promising specific benefits is considered coercive. For example, saying, “I will talk to the court and get you a lower sentence” will be coercive. While saying, “I will speak with the prosecutor and let them know you were completely truthful and took responsibility for your actions” generally would not be considered coercive. However, it is important to take the totality of the interview into account.
- Denial of Rights: Ignoring a suspect’s request for an attorney or continuing interrogation after they invoke their right to silence violates their constitutional rights and can contribute to a coercive atmosphere. While it is not inherently coercive to continue to speak with a suspect after they have invoked their right to silence, it may contribute to the overall environment of coercion. Even if you aren’t asking them questions, what you say and how you speak may be looked at as an attempt to coerce the suspect into speaking again.
- Denial of Physical Needs: Depriving a suspect of food, water, sleep, or bathroom breaks, particularly during prolonged interrogations, can weaken their resolve and increase their susceptibility to suggestion. The courts have not yet placed a bright line rule for interview length before it becomes coercive. Ensuring the needs of the suspect are met will definitely lengthen the perceived uncoercive time frame for your suspect. If they say they need to use the restroom, you don’t have to immediately allow a bathroom break. However, continuing the interview for another two hours and dismissing repeated requests to use the bathroom, may be considered coercive. Sleep deprivation has long been used as a tactic to induce confessions. Ensuring a suspect has not been intentionally kept up for extensive period of time will ensure their resolve was not overrun.
- Excessively Long Interrogations: Prolonged interrogations can exhaust a suspect, both physically and mentally, making them more likely to confess falsely simply to end the ordeal. Once again, a specific length is not outlined, but constant monitoring of the length, combined with the other needs of the suspect will be scrutinized heavily.
- Disclosure of Crime Details: Inadvertently revealing crime scene details to a suspect can contaminate a subsequent confession, as it becomes difficult to discern whether the suspect had independent knowledge or simply repeated information provided by investigators. The interview style and progression is critical in every suspect interview. Obtaining a narrative prior to any other significant questioning, coupled with strategic use of evidence (SUE) will safeguard against false confessions. If you are unfamiliar with the strategic use of evidence, It is covered heavily in our interview and interrogation class. Additionally, several articles cover aspects of SUE.
- Failure to Consider Mental Limitations or Psychological Disabilities: Individuals with cognitive impairments or psychological vulnerabilities are particularly susceptible to suggestion and coercion. Investigators must adapt their approach when questioning such individuals, focusing on logical questioning rather than persuasive techniques. Obtaining corroborating information unknown to investigators is crucial in these cases. This has been known for many decades. However, it should still be analyzed as much as practicable prior to the interview.
- Failure to Modify Approach with Juveniles: Socially immature juveniles are quite susceptible to suggestion and eager to please authority figures. Investigators must exercise caution and avoid overly persuasive tactics when questioning young suspects. Identifying several factors related to the juvenile’s age, maturing, education level, and experience with law enforcement are critical. Additionally, it is important to adjust the provisions of Miranda to ensure a complete and thorough understanding of their rights.
- Failure to Corroborate Confession Details: Confessions lacking corroboration or containing details inconsistent with the known facts of the crime should be treated with extreme caution. Important details, that have not been contaminated by the interviewer giving details of the scene or other evidence is paramount to the confession. Giving details of the scene or other inculpatory evidence is important. However, the suspect providing previously unknown inculpatory details or even exculpatory details, whether true or false, MUST be followed up on. Failure to corroborate or prove false any providing exculpatory could easily prove lethal to your case.
Addressing Common Misconceptions and Best Practices
Several misconceptions surrounding interrogation techniques exist. It is crucial to clarify these points:
- The Purpose of Interrogation: The primary goal of interrogation is to uncover actionable intelligence, not simply to obtain a confession. A successful interrogation can yield various outcomes, including a corroborated confession, information about other involved parties, or the exoneration of an innocent individual. The goal of the interview is details. These details must be followed up on and proven true or false as best as possible.
- Minimization/Maximization: While some forms of minimization, such as downplaying the moral or psychological implications of the crime, can be acceptable, promises of leniency or threats of harsher punishment are never permissible. Be very careful of your word usage and how they were taken by the suspect.
- Misrepresenting Evidence: While courts have generally upheld the use of deception regarding evidence, it should be used cautiously and avoided with vulnerable populations. Coercion, not deception itself, is the primary driver of false confessions. Using a ruse has been allowed in the past. The production of false evidence has not. One note with ruses. Consider using them carefully. If you use a ruse to suggest you have evidence that you do not, and the suspect knows you do not actually possess that evidence, you may ruin any rapport you have built, and your interview will be over sooner than later.
- Interrogating Juveniles: Investigators must modify their approach when questioning juveniles, taking into account their developmental stage and susceptibility to suggestion.
To minimize the risk of false confessions, investigators should adhere to the following best practices:
- Avoid coercion in all forms, including threats, promises, and denial of rights.
- Ensure the suspect’s physical needs are met.
- Withhold key crime details for corroboration purposes.
- Exercise caution with vulnerable populations.
- Electronically record all interviews and interrogations.
- Treat all suspects with dignity and respect.
- Thoroughly investigate confession details for corroboration and inconsistencies.
By understanding the factors that contribute to false confessions and adhering to best practices, you can enhance the integrity of investigations and ensure that justice is served properly.
Expanding Your Knowledge: Beyond the Basics
Understanding the complexities of false confessions is crucial for any professional involved in the criminal justice system. The insights shared in this article represent a starting point for deeper understanding. To truly master the nuances of ethical interviewing and interrogation, continuous learning and exploration are essential.
Are you interested in further developing your skills and knowledge in this critical area? There are many avenues to explore:
- Further Research: Delve into academic studies and legal journals that examine false confessions in detail.
- Professional Development: Seek out training and workshops that focus on ethical interviewing and interrogation techniques.
- Case Studies: Analyze real-world cases of false confessions to understand the practical applications of these principles.
- Open Discussion: Engage in discussions with colleagues and experts to exchange insights and perspectives.
By staying informed and committed to ethical practices, we can collectively work to minimize the risk of false confessions and ensure that justice is served fairly and accurately.
Want to Learn More?
If you’re interested in exploring science-based interviewing techniques and delving deeper into the ethical considerations surrounding interrogations, consider exploring resources from organizations dedicated to improving investigative practices.
Learn More about our 40-Hour Interview and Interrogation Class.
