People confess to crimes they have not committed. Why?

According to research what could be done to reduce the incidence

of false confessions.

A confession is a detailed written or sometimes oral statement in which a

person admits to having committed a criminal offence. Confessions are very

powerful evidential tools in criminal law when it comes to trials and sure

convictions. They are an irrefutable admission of guilt. Police officers see

the interrogation process as a means to obtain a confession or further

evidence which will prove the person’s guilt (Ainsworth, 2000). Serious

factors that elicit false confessions are those that are the consequence of

police interrogation methods which are designed to encourage confession by

the guilty but may encourage confession by the innocent (Howitt, 2006).

Not all false confessions are solicited by police. The consequence of falsely

confessing can be as serious as those who give a true confession. They are at

a high risk of being convicted even though they might retract their

confession later on, which will probably not be accepted. “From a

psychological perspective, a false confession is any detailed admission to a

1
criminal act that the confessor did not commit” (Kassin and Gudjosson,

2004).There are various reasons why people might confess to a crime they

have never committed.

Kassin (1997) classifies false confessions into three types, voluntary false

confession, coerced-compliant false confession and coerced-internalized

false confession: Voluntary false confessions are self incriminating

statements that are offered without external pressure. There are several

reasons why a person might be inclined to do this. One may do it to protect a

relative or friend, especially when it has to do with juvenile offenders.

Another reason is the pathological need for fame, acceptance, recognition or

self punishment an example of this is the kidnapping of the baby of the

famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, when more than 200 people confessed to

the crime (Kassin, 1997).

In Coerced – Complaint false confessions suspects confess after intense

interrogation pressures. This happens when the suspect confesses in order to

escape of avoid more interrogation or to gain what the police have offered in

return of a confession. The confession in this case is merely an act of

compliance and the suspect knows that he/she is innocent but believe that by

2
confessing they will be left alone etc. They are only aware of the short term

effects of confessing and never bear in mind that this will lead to persecution

and possibly incarceration. They often plead guilty as the police make them

believe they will be granted penalty reductions (Kassin, 1997). An example

of this is when 5 teenage boys, aged 14 to 17 after intense interrogations that

lasted between 14 to 30 hours, confessed to being involved in the violent

attack of a 28 year-old woman. The teenagers later said that they had simply

told police officers what they wanted to hear, so they would be able to go

home (Meissner and Russano, 2003).

One of the most interesting types of false confessions is the Coerced-

internalized confessions. An innocent person confesses after being subjected

to methods of interrogation that cause major anxiety and confusion. The

suspect ends up actually thinking they might have committed the crime. This

is very dangerous as a suspect’s memory of his/her actions can be altered

and the suspect no longer can identify the truth. This type of confession may

happen mostly is the suspect is vulnerable, for example is naïve, young,

lacks intelligence coupled with false evidence that makes he/she believe that

they have really committed the act (Kassin, 1997). When suspects are

confronted with false evidence of their guilt, for example being told that they

failed a polygraph exam or that their DNA was found at the scene of the

3
crime, they begin questioning their memory on what really happened and

about their involvement in the crime (Meissner and Russano, 2003). The

most famous case involving coerced- internalized false confessions is the

one involving Paul Ingram, a deputy sheriff accused of the satanic ritual

abuse of his daughter (Meissner and Russano, 2003). Ingram initially denied

the charges, but after 5 months of repeat interrogation, hypnotism and

encouragement to remember the abuse he succumbed and confessed. He was

sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, without any physical evidence to

support the confession. Ingram’s memory vulnerability came from being

repeatedly told by investigators and psychologists “that it would be natural

for him to repress memories of his crimes, and that his memory could be

recovered by praying to God for answers”. (He was a deeply religious man)

(Meissner and Russano, 2003).

In 1974, members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) planted bombs in two

pubs in Guildford, England. Five persons were killed and 57 injured. A

month later, a bomb exploded in The King's Arms in Woolrich, South

London, killing 2 and injuring 27. The explosions caused public outrage, and

some 150 detectives went to work on the case. Four of the suspects who

were rounded up confessed to the crimes. They were convicted and

imprisoned. Gudjonnson, joined by others looked into the case and

4
eventually made it clear that the four had confessed to crimes they did not

commit. After 15 years in prison they were acquitted and released. The

above case serves as excellent examples of investigator bias. The police had

to be outraged by these senseless bombings. Their rage may have made them

“will to believe” was really guilty or innocent. Gudjonsson pinpointed this

cloudy dilemma: “Interrogation bias may result in police officers being

particularly vigilant and receptive to information that is consistent with their

prior assumptions and beliefs, whilst ignoring, minimizing or distorting

information that contradicts their assumptions. Information that does not

support the interviewer's hypotheses may be erroneously interpreted as lies,

misunderstanding, evasiveness or defensiveness” According to Gudjonsson,

the stronger the interviewer's prior assumptions and beliefs, the greater the

interrogator's bias.

Police officers who manage to elicit a confession are rewarded with a lot of

respect. Their methods of interviewing suspects are seen as a way of

showing their ‘professional prowess’ (Ainsworth, 2000). Police officers are

highly motivated to solve crimes and sometimes do all they can to get a

confession from their suspects. Stress, pressure and threat are applied to the

interrogation as they increase fear, anxiety, guilt or anger. This, according to

5
the police will test their ‘guilty knowledge’ (Ainsworth, 2000). Gudjonsson

is critical of police deceitful techniques. He feels that “police trickery and

deception deprives suspects of the opportunity of making informed and

rational decisions about their right not to incriminate themselves”

Gudjosson and Clark suggested the concept of ‘interrogative suggestibility’

to explain how individuals respond differently to police questioning.

‘Interrogative suggestibility’ according to Gudjosson is how people in a

closed social area accept messages during questioning and how their

behaviour and response is affected by this (Conti, 1999). Gudjosson

described five elements that he saw make part of the ‘interrogative

suggestibility’: Closed interaction between the suspect and interrogator,

questioning procedure with two or more participants, suggestive stimulus

(hints, ideas), acceptance of the suggested stimulus and behavioural

response to the suggestions (accepted or not). In such a situation the

interrogator can manipulate trust, uncertainty and expectation to be able to

alter the person’s susceptibility to suggestions (Conti, 1999).

Characteristics of the person affect the way this method works out. People

with low intelligence, poor memory, low self esteem, anxiety are more prone

6
to be suggestible and more likely to give false statements and confess to

crimes they did not commit. Introverts are more capable to be conditioned

easily than extroverts, and since many criminals are extroverts and designed

for the typical criminal, may have an adverse effect on innocent introverts.

(Conti, 1999) Stress is another important factor that interrogators use to

elicit confessions. A certain amount of stress applied to a normal person

might get the truth of him/her, but if it is applied to someone who is

psychologically weak, it may result in a false confession (Conti, 1999).

In order to reduce the incidence of false confessions police investigators

should receive special training in appropriate interviewing skills. During

training, special attention should also be given to dealing with individuals

with special needs such as the mentally impaired and juveniles during

interrogation. Effective communication practices by investigators will lead

to accuracy and accountability in the criminal justice system and hopefully

reduce the number of erroneous convictions (Cassell, 1998). The judicial

system needs to be more aware of the inapt approaches of eliciting

confessions from suspects in custody. Interrogations should be centered on

eliciting the truth rather than trying to get a confession. When questioning a

potential suspect, the investigator should take on a disinterested role rather

7
than an adversarial one (Conti, 1999). The length of interviews, are also

detrimental and can account for false confessions. Long interrogations cause

anxiety and stress. Limiting the amount of time interrogations can last, the

time they are held, for example not when the suspect is supposed to be

sleeping will reduce the phenomenon of false confessions (Conti, 1999). In

order to eliminate foregone conclusions and to guarantee the accuracy and

authenticity of confessions, it is vital that statements issued be substantiated

by evidence. With DNA tests exonerating scores of persons wrongly accused

and convicted of crimes, claims of false confessions have been vindicated.

Another idea is to videotape or audiotape all interrogations. Mandatory

videotaping requirement would serve a dual purpose of protecting police

agencies from claims of misconduct and safeguarding the rights of suspects

(Moushey and Perry, 2006). Meissner and Russano presented the ‘best

practice’ recommendations for interrogating suspects. The first is

Transparency of the Interrogation process, which advocates the video taping

of interrogations to be able to reduce the practice of investigators changing

their use of coercive techniques to pre interrogation techniques, and that the

angle of the video taping shows both the investigator and the suspect to

reduce biases of third parties when deciding on the voluntariness of the

confession. The second recommendation is The Identification of Suspect

8
Vulnerabilities. Certain individuals are more susceptible than others,

especially if they are children/juveniles or mentally challenged. In these

cases, assistance should be provided to these individuals. The psychological

and physical state of the suspects should be taken in consideration at the

time of interrogation. Factors such as recent use of drugs or alcohol, lack of

sleep or pain must be also considered. In this case, the interrogation should

cease until the individual is in a ‘normal’ state. The third recommendation

by Meissner and Russano is The Avoidance of Techniques that Increase the

Likelihood of False Confessions. Certain factors are known to influence

individuals to falsely confess, so interrogators are advised not to use

negative influence such as suggesting memory failure theories and

presenting false evidence. Interrogators according to Meissner and Russano

should also try not to lengthen interrogations and not offer leniency or

bargains in exchange of a confession. The final recommendation by

Meissner and Russano is the Post-Interrogation Analysis of Confession

Reliability suggested by Leo and Oshe (1998). An evaluation of all the fact

pre interrogation and post interrogation is recommended to check that all the

facts are consistent.

9
 References

• Ainsworth, P.B (2000).Psychology and Crime: Myths and Reality.

Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

• Cassell, P.G (1998) Protecting the Innocent from False Confessions

and Lost Confessions: And from "Miranda". The Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 88, No. 2 (Winter, 1998), pp. 497-
556

• Conti, B. (1999). The Psychology of False Confessions. The Journal

of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology 1999, Vol. 2, No.
1, Published by the Department of Psychology of Boise State
University

• Howitt, D (2006). Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology.

Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

• Kassin, S.M and Gudjonsson G.H. (2004). The Psychology of

Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues. Department of
Psychology, Williams College, and Institute of Psychiatry, King’s
College, London, United Kingdom

• Meissner, C.A and Russano, M.B. (2003). The Psychology of

Interrogations and False Confessions: Research and
Recommendations. The Canadian Journal of Police & Security
Services, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2003.

• Moushey, B. and Perry, E. (2006). Did they confess? No One Will

Ever Know For Sure Because of Failures to Record All Custodial
Interrogations. Perry Innocence Institute of Point Park University.

10