False confessions

http://www.economist.com/node/21525840

by j-g-faustus • 15 years ago

180 66 15 years ago

yuhong• 15 years ago

Yea, I am well aware of the advice to not talk to the police. But I wonder why the police would go to such trouble to get confessions as to write a letter to trick people into doing so etc.

autarch• 15 years ago

Police are generally under a lot of pressure to close cases. Getting a confession closes a case quickly and neatly.

Watch The Wire to get an idea of what kind of pressures the police face to "solve" crimes.

baddox4• 15 years ago

Also, police have power. Power has a profound impact on most people, and generally not a good one.

sesqu• 15 years ago

Hunches are/used to be a big part of police work. When you just know they're guilty, you're not going to let them get away with it if there's anything you can do.

a3camero4• 15 years ago

In Canada they go to far, far greater lengths than writing letters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_(police_procedure)

michaelschade2• 15 years ago

Unfortunately not a lab test, I saw this on Frontline recently and it was very disturbing to see that confessions could be so easily had: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/etc/...

Essentially, the story involves these sailors individually confessing to a crime (and allegedly tailoring their confessions to the investigator's words) when they were implicated by someone already being interrogated. With each additional person being interrogated, more people were implicated (who were previously unnamed), and previous confessions were amended accordingly.

Quite saddening indeed.

akamaka• 15 years ago

I came here to post this, so thanks for finding the link to share with everyone. I'm not usually a fan of crime-related TV documentaries, but this is one of the best episodes of Frontline I've seen, and was absolutely eye-opening for me. I highly recommend watching it!

nikcub• 15 years ago

The Frontline story was very eerie. The other famous case is the West Memphis Three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

Who were jailed partly because of a police-coerced confession from one of the three. They are still in prison, but apparently close to getting a re-trial.

The case was made famous by the excellent HBO documentary 'Paradise Lost' - which is a must see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost:_The_Child_Murder...

They are lucky because their case has a high-profile because of the film - but there must be many, many other innocent people in prisons because of false confessions.

For example, many people believe that Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas, was also innocent (he was also the subject of a Frontline story:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1618590505/

and a feature in the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_...

wgren• 15 years ago

An interesting read is "Remembering Satan", about a small community torn apart by accusations of sexual abuse and satanic rituals. Many people confessed, some were convicted, no evidence was ever produced.

http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Satan-Tragic-Recovered-Mem...

Duff3• 15 years ago

Rule #1: Don't talk to the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

You're better off taking the beating.

SoftwareMaven• 15 years ago

And it's not "Don't talk to the police if you have nothing to hide". Unfortunately, you are always better off to not talk to the police.

eru2• 15 years ago

In America. I wonder about the situation in other legal systems.

baddox4• 15 years ago

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that example? The officer could still lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=playe...

lukesandberg• 15 years ago

I don't think much can help you if you are dealing with an officer who is willing to lie and falsify evidence in order to convict you. But the key detail is that its much more likely that an officer (or any person) will misremember something you said or take it out of context if you actually said anything at all.

By not talking you prevent this problem entirely because no one will accidentally forget or take out of context that fact that you never said anything at all.

Duff3• 15 years ago

"Lie" in the eye of the beholder.

To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.

spodek• 15 years ago

"how exactly does not talking help you?"

You still communicate. You speak through your lawyer.

joe_the_user• 15 years ago

Even if you are dealing with someone willing to lie about the situation, not talking helps you a lot because it gives them less material to work with. If they have to make something up whole-cloth, there's a higher chance that they'll make something up that couldn't possibly have happened. If they have your description of what really happened, they only have to alter a few details.

j_baker• 15 years ago

How does not being silent help you? Talking to them provides no benefit to you and gives the police opportunity to make you slip up. There's no upside to talking to the police and a lot of potential drawbacks.

mahyarm3• 15 years ago

But don't take it to the extreme. Do talk a little bit 'What is the problem officer', 'Do you know why I pulled you over? -- No", "Am I free to go?" when it takes longer than it should and a little politeness can go a long way when your pulled over for a minor ticket. Shut up in all other situations, detainment, questioning, asking to search and especially once your arrested.

burgerbrain2• 15 years ago

Especially shut up in traffic stops. Police rely very heavily on confessions in such situations, and don't appreciate lying. Even if you think you're telling the truth, they won't (that is why they pulled you over..). Saying anything except answering their queries with carefully constructed responses will either incriminate you or make them mad.

  "Do you now how fast you were going?"

  "What do you have me as officer?"

  "15 over, but since you were wearing your seatbelt I'll
   let you off with a warning"

The number of times I have directly participated in this exchange or been present for it is rather impressive (flyover country, long stretches of straight roads limited to 60mph...). Be polite, but do not admit to a thing.

roel_v4• 15 years ago

Well in the video a law school professor with experience as a criminal defense attorney and a police officer say otherwise. Saying 'no' to 'do you know why I pulled you over' is ok (I guess, as long as there are no other circumstances that make it plausible that you knew why you were being pulled over, in which case your 'no' would make you lying to the police), but initiating conversation with 'what is the problem' not.

tzs• 15 years ago

You are standing at the end of the block. You hear a woman scream "help! he's taking my baby!", and look up to see two men push a woman violently to the ground, snatch a baby from a stroller, jump into a car, and drive up the street in your direction.

They reach the intersection, where you get a good look at the men as they turn the corner. The drive halfway down the block, and turn into a driveway, pull into the garage at that house, and close the garage door, and then come out with the baby, and get into a car that was waiting in the driveway, and leave nonchalantly. You recognize the make and model of the car and are even able to read the license plate and memorize it.

You are the only witness to this part of their getaway.

The police quickly come, and ask you if you saw them men and were they went.

Are you REALLY going to say nothing? Or tell them you won't say anything without your lawyer present?

generalk• 15 years ago

Did you watch the video?

Most of the time you'll talk to the police and tell them everything you saw and that's that. It's not likely the police will target you, but that's cold comfort if you somehow end up on the wrong end of a police investigation, which is the point of the video.

You sound smart, what are possible alternatives here? Call in an anonymous tip maybe, or describe exactly what you saw, then refuse further communication without counsel present.

Duff3• 15 years ago

In that scenario, you have a moral and legal obligation to report the crime. So you meet that obligation by giving the appropriate authorities the information they need, then leave.

furyg3• 15 years ago

Reporting a crime is a bit different than being questioned for one, but the point still stands that by talking to a police officer you are potentially risking a lot, and should take the situation very seriously.

"Which direction did they go?!?" "Which house is on fire?!" "Does he have a gun?!" are very different questions (with different moral obligations) than "What are you doing in this neighborhood so late at night?" "Do you live around here?" "Is this your car?"

Non-urgent questions and statements should be given in the presence of an attorney, recorded, and preferably on the condition of immunity :)

JFPetersen• 15 years ago

Or maybe you find a pipe bomb in a crowded area and decide to alert the police & help evacuate the area. Nothing could go wrong there, you're only trying to save lives. Much like the above posited scenario, how could anyone see you as anything other than a hero?

Look, I'll admit I'm biased (I'm a criminal defense attorney.) That said, you never know which good, wholesome, moral conversation that you have with the police will turn you from a heroic savior into a criminal suspect.

(For what it's worth, I'd speak to the police in your scenario. That said, I wouldn't fault anyone for not doing so.)

alanfalcon• 15 years ago

I confess that I didn't read the article, but this reminds me of the HN story of the University professor who asked students who cheated to come in to his office, and then found some large percentage who came to the office though the software exonerated them.

The question is: did they cheat and get it past the software? Or were they, as suggested in this article, admitting to something they did not do?

glimcat• 15 years ago

They could easily have been intimidated by the prospect that they would be wrongfully accused and went to his office under the implied premise of amnesty. The game as visible to the student is something like an extra essay assignment weighed against possibly having to fight expulsion.

I suspect that there are similar factors involved in other false confessions. It's an asymmetric knowledge game. The only winning move for the person being questioned is not to play, but they may not be aware of that - and worse, they may trust the other player. With further intimidation, privation, and humiliation, it's not hard to imagine why people could break down.

Aloisius• 15 years ago

I've always worried that if I ever became a suspect in a crime that I would confess under pressure even if I didn't do it. There is something about me feeling guilty, authority and intimidation that makes me think I might.

Then again, my coping mechanism of becoming flippant/sarcastic could flip on and I'd confess to murdering JFK, Michael Jackson and Biggie using my mind/time machine.

splat• 15 years ago

If that's the case, then the first words out of your mouth if you are ever interrogated are "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If you say that, then the police are legally required to stop the interrogation then and there. (Ironically, simply remaining silent is not sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins)

seabee• 15 years ago

Ironically but not unreasonably, since if silence were an indicator that you wished never to speak, people who wanted to talk would never reach that point.

(In the UK there is no such thing as the right to remain silent, unless you are in a situation in which you are denied access to legal advice (rare). In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Funny how it differs.)

a3camero4• 15 years ago

This is not the case in Canada! I'm sure it isn't the case in many other countries too.

Here's someone who said 18 times that he didn't want to talk to the police and asserted his right to silence. Appeal denied. Convicted of murder. 2007 Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+sil...).

"Whenever the discussion turned to the incident in question, however, Mr. Singh was less forthcoming. Although he provided some information regarding his presence at the pub on the night of the shooting, he repeatedly denied his involvement and asserted his right to silence. He indicated that he did not want to talk to the police, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, or that he wanted to return to his cell. Before Mr. Singh was shown the photographs in question and made the impugned admissions, he asserted his right to silence 18 times. Each time, the interviewing officer would either affirm that Mr. Singh did not have to say anything, or would explain to Mr. Singh that he had a duty or desire to place the evidence before him and he continued the interview."

res0nat0r• 15 years ago

The Confessions on Frontline is one of most interesting reports from that show that I've seen, it's related to four men who confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Highly recommended.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

mc32• 15 years ago

I think something like this would have a huge impact on the conviction rate in Japan where a significant amount is based in coerced confessions. See BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm

But this reminds me of the malleability of memory and also herd-like mentality. I think it was on Tv or somewhere where the experiment involved flooding a room with participants with fake smoke but confederates were set to deny it was smoke. The effect was that the fake smoke was ignored. Had it been a real fire, they'd all have perished.

derefr• 15 years ago

It'd be nice if [insert popular TV crime drama] would pick this up and run with it. We might start to see juries doubting confessions in the same way they've already been trained by the media to doubt non-forensic evidence.

pavel_lishin2• 15 years ago

The burden of proof has apparently been raised to ridiculous levels by CSI, according to some prosecutors. Juries believe that the sort of thing done on CSI is realistic, and they expect very definitive results and evidence, which usually doesn't happen.

eru2• 15 years ago

And don't even start to look at court proceedings in Germany, where people are astonished that it's nothing like in the dubbed American shows they watch.

scotty79• 15 years ago

I always found it strange that when a guy is saying he was doing something else noone believes him but when he starts telling he was doing what people suspect him of suddenly his word is rock solid.

If someone is consistently upset with what you are saying and makes your life miserable you try behaving differently especially in such stressful situation.

It's useful to listen to people suspected of crimes but you should treat their "confessions" as a clues where to finds evidence of what actually happened.

kemayo• 15 years ago

Funnily enough, the Phoenix Wright series of games for the Nintendo DS, despite featuring an utterly ridiculous legal system, has this as a fairly central element. The basis of gameplay is cross-examining witnesses... and nearly every single one of them is either lying or misremembering things. I seem to recall at least one time where you were defending someone who had already confessed, for that matter.

The lying's not uncommon in TV dramas, but the unreliability of eyewitnesses accounts certainly is.

holdenc• 15 years ago

When an investigator tells someone that they have two choices: confess and face potentially five years in jail, or plead not guilty and face potentially twenty years in jail, what sounds like the best deal?

stretchwithme2• 15 years ago

Peer pressure is a powerful thing.

suprgeek• 15 years ago

When I was reading the article, I was wondering when they would get to the role of interrogations especially aggressive ones. I cannot find the link now but there was a study which subjected people to sustained questioning that went on for more than 3 hours without a break. After 3(?) hrs all the subjects were offered the chance to end the interview if they agreed to deposit some non-trivial amount of money for 60 days. Something like 95% of people agreed and even signed (fake but real looking) legal contracts to that effect - even tough most were students (not rich) recruited for the study.

Never underestimate the stress caused when in a room with people aggressively questioning you. Even if they do no physical harm, This is VERY stressful.

In the US - "Am I free to go?" and "I want a lawyer" should be at the top of your 2 item list when in this situation. Remember, the Police care about solving crimes certainly - they care more about clearing cases quickly.

a3camero4• 15 years ago

Three hours? That's nothing for Canadian interrogations.

Here's a 2008 case (from the highest court in a major Canadian province) I found pretty quickly that's about a four and a half hour interrogation where the police lie about having DNA evidence that pins the crime on the person: http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22The+interview+...

Here's a 2000 Supreme Court of Canada case about an approximately eight hour interrogation (at which point the guy confessed): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc38/2000scc38.... There are plenty more of these. There's no hard and fast limit to how long Canadian police can interrogate you for.

mchusma• 15 years ago

While the experiment with the ALT key was interesting and can shed some light on this subject, it would be a mistake to extrapolate too much. I would be far more likely to assume "I probably did accidentally hit the ALT key" than "Oh, I probably did murder that person." Hitting the ALT key by accident is extremely easy, and the punishment in this study small relative to most criminal offenses.

takinola• 15 years ago

I used to think the whole false confession issue was bunk. I could not imagine confessing to a crime I did not commit for the obvious reason that there was simply no upside. However, this changed when someone I knew told me the story of how he found himself in a situation where he almost confessed to a crime. Here's the story

My friend, Bill, was in charge of construction projects at a real estate development. One night, he gets a phone call at 3 in the morning to let him know that one of the homes under construction is on fire. He jumps out of bed, grabs his camera and rushes out to scene of the fire. Once he gets there, he starts taking pictures in order to get a jump start on the insurance paperwork. Unfortunately, the firemen trying to put out the fire start to get suspicious. From their perspective, here's a strange guy taking pictures of burning homes at 3 in the morning (it's a development so there were no other occupied homes in the vicinity). They get to thinking maybe he is a pyromaniac who is now collecting trophy photos of his handiwork. They call the cops, Bill gets arrested and ends up in the interrogation room. Now, Bill is a pretty tough guy. Remember, he worked his way up in the construction business to become a manager so he is not a weakling by any means. However, after a couple hours of being grilled by the cops, he said he was just about ready to confess just to make it stop. They didn't beat him or anything, just the relentless application of all manner of psychological techniques (badgering, cajoling, threats of long sentences, good-bad cop, etc) completely wore him out. He was only saved when his boss found out that he had been arrested and called the station to back up his story.

From that time on, I realized that under the right circumstances, it is possible for a mentally stable, reasonable person to confess to a crime they did not commit.

More importantly, I realized that because I can't imagine something happening, does not mean it can not happen.

False confessions

Related Stories