Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations

https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2025-79126-001.html

by amadeuspagel • 1 year ago

64 56 1 year ago

psycnet.apa.org

bastardoperator• 1 year ago

Never talk to police, always ask for a lawyer.

jimbob45• 1 year ago

Does that advice hold true outside of the US?

cedilla2• 1 year ago

It's always a good idea to ask for a lawyer (and to demand that the embassy of your home country gets informed).

However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.

hluska4• 1 year ago

As a general rule, research that before you go anywhere. In Canada, for example, suspects have the right not to make any statements. In China, suspects have the right not to answer “irrelevant questions.”

It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black.

And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.

reverendsteveii2• 1 year ago

I can't imagine a place where it wouldn't hold true. You may or may not get the lawyer you request but a police interview is never gonna be about anything other than getting you to say something that will get you convicted of one or many crimes.

ziddoap• 1 year ago

One of the classic videos on the subject by Law Professor (and former criminal defense attorney) James Duane, accompanied by a police officer that concurs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

And accompanying paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119

Diederich• 1 year ago

I watch this video at least once a year, and make my immediate family do the same.

Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule.

As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important.

It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you.

I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less.

Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.

hluska4• 1 year ago

My dad was a police officer and I grew up in the age of AIDS hysteria. Without any hyperbole, my dad spent more time/words drilling in how to protect myself from police than from AIDS. Granted, I had about as much sex appeal as a paper bag full of day old vomit so maybe that was more about probability of facing risk than actual risk. :)

tracker1• 1 year ago

And be careful where/when/how you say "OK" in response to any statement from police.

maerF0x02• 1 year ago

It was a dark realization for me about some of the ways that America is corrupt despite branding/veneer of beautiful things like freedom, prosperity, christianity.

IMO A just nation who wanted to live out those^^ values would limit the rights of police (who are not judge or jury), and do the following:

1. Anything said before a lawyer is present is inadmissable

2. The officer's word is not considered superior to the defendent's

3. There are strictly enforced rights police must uphold until you're proven guilty. This includes basic comfort (think food, water, temperature regulation, sleep, access to daylight, contact with support people/friends/family)

4. You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change or if it does then all prior investigation is inadmissable evidence)

5. Police are not allowed to lie, or otherwise be deceptive

6. Police are liable for negative impacts they cause, including loss of work, loss of opportunity, disruptions of family etc. Acquittal should begin the process of recompense for losses.

I think in attempts to be "tough on crime" or "back the blue" America has lost it's sense of right and wrong / morality.

tptacek9• 1 year ago

There are plenty of things we take for granted in American criminal justice that aren't standard in Europe. For example: you do not necessarily get exclusion of inappropriately obtained evidence, or a right not to incriminate yourself. There's an amazing article about how criminal justice works in France that followed "Anatomy of a Fall" --- just the idea that the prosecutor doesn't literally work for the judge is not a universal idea!

What's happening here is that we read more stories about criminal justice in America than stories about anywhere else. In fact, we more or less exclusively hear stories about America; we are the true crime center of the planet. That's fine, but it's also a powerful cognitive bias. Be careful about extrapolating too much from it.

_DeadFred_3• 1 year ago

In the US inappropriately obtained evidence, failure to follow chain of custody, etc is waived by the judges and allowed under 'good faith' (the court assumes good faith on the police's part even though the police failed to follow the process/rules/law/requirements and therefor the court doesn't enforce compliance requirements).

Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.

giraffe_lady5• 1 year ago

We have by far the highest rate of police-on-civilian violence among developed countries. Our peers on this metric are nations like angola, honduras, mali, colombia. It's not a bias.

We certainly have some excellent procedural innovations in our court system. But we absolutely do have other problems that are much worse than those faced within the carceral systems of other countries at a similar level of wealth and development.

kvdveer• 1 year ago

I'd love to see a source for your claims. I know they are at least untrue or misleading for the Netherlands.

The Netherlands offers the right to remain silent. All European counties I am familiar offer something similar. On the European level, this right has recently been affirmed. [1]

In the Netherlands, improperly obtained evidence is indeed not excluded in the Netherlands. Improperly obtaining evidence is a separate crime that does not taint the case for the initial crime, and is prosecuted separately. However, improperly handled evidence (e.g. broken chain of custody) is normally excluded.

In practice, improperly obtained evidence is not a major problem, it will in itself not help convict an innocent person. Improperly handled evidence however, can easily lead to an innocent person being convicted.

[1] https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/european-court-justi...

wonder_er• 1 year ago

a lot of the 'oddness' of american 'policing' gets cleared up when considering one of the main origin stories of policing in America.

Across the "american south"/the american slaveholding states, police departments were "founded" when municipalities printed metal stars ('sheriff's badges') and handed them to the _existing_ slave patrols. (plenty of other police departments beyond the american south started in the same way, but to appreciate the energy of it all, the place it started matters.)

these deputized slave patrols were given badges, presumably budgets, and the message: "keep on doing what you're doing, which is, among other things preventing slave rebellions and retaining 'human capital'.".

It's not easy for that 15% of the people, keeping the other 85% of the population from walking away or rebelling.

Oh, the book "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane is very short, less than 100 pages, and is worth the read. It rounds to "do not talk to the police", and 'viewing the police as adversarial agents is the only correct view, both in their own words and the words of their victims'.

bloak• 1 year ago

I wouldn't want evidence to automatically become "inadmissible" because of something the police have done: they could accidentally-on-purpose do something that makes the evidence that would have proved me innocent "inadmissible". Also, organised criminals could bribe the police to make the evidence that would have proved them guilty "inadmissible".

If there's one right I'd like to see added it's this: the right to a trial without a jury. I'll admit it may have something to do with my social class and education, and where I live, but I trust a judge to make the right decision more than I trust a jury.

burnished• 1 year ago

Then you bring the evidence exonerating you. The prosecution is limited, not you.

Already have the problem with bribery, this literally does not impact that.

dragonwriter• 1 year ago

Inadmissibility of government evidence due to government violations of the accused’s constitutional rights in its collection never works against the accused.

autoexec2• 1 year ago

You have a right to know exactly where you're fitting into an investigation, if you're the subject or a witness (and your role cannot change

The end result of that would logically have to be that everyone police talk to at all times are a "subject" because it's perfectly reasonable that someone who is questioned about what they know about a crime might end up having had some part in it.

maerF0x02• 1 year ago

Yes. And if the police are not allowed to be deceptive about your role in the investigation, then it becomes clear what you should to in response. (STFU, essentially).

zigglezaggle• 1 year ago

This is a nice sentiment and all, but the police & prosecutors are already on the losing side of a technological and societal arms race.

The reasons police use these tactics is because in many jurisdictions, getting a guilty verdict is borderline impossible, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of direct evidence. Defense counsels have become experts in shit-slinging to ensure that juries are as confused as possible going into deliberations. "Jury of peers" means it's somewhere between possible and probable to get one or many jurors sympathetic to the defendant, especially in cities. Jurors attempting to appear "unbiased" frequently just choose the middle ground option between the prosecution and defense, without actually taking a look at the evidence.

The current system is extraordinarily flawed and leads to these outcomes where all sides are forced to use immoral tactics to get their desired outcome, because that's the only realistic shot they've got to accomplish their goals. The correct response is not to further kneecap one side of the conflict.

simonw• 1 year ago

The thing where the cops are allowed to lie to people in the USA in order to get confessions out of them is so wild to me.

There's a section in here about that: "Presentations of False Evidence"

"At times, American police will overcome a suspect’s denials by presenting supposedly incontrovertible evidence of guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. [...] In much of the world, police are not permitted to deceive suspects in this way."

autoexec2• 1 year ago

Not even just to get a confession. Police can stop you on the street for no reason and lie to your face telling you that you are required to hand over your ID or allow them to search you and if you refuse you'd be committing a crime and will go to jail. If you don't know your rights you can end up giving them permission to violate them.

You can't even trust police to tell you when you're doing something illegal.

rvnx2• 1 year ago

Canada, Australia, England, Japan...

highpost• 1 year ago

It's STFU Friday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EI_RYIEtrg

josefritzishere• 1 year ago

1. Remain calm. do not escalate the encouter. Police are often violent, and are substance abusers. Being right will not keep you alive. 2. You have the right to remain silent, use it. 3. You have a right to a lawyer, use it. 4. You have the right to refuse searches. Tell them “I do not consent to searches” it may nto stop them but it helps your case. 5. Understand that police cany legally lie to you. See #2 6. Ask if you are free to go or it you are being detained. 7. Record the encounter or take notes. You might need that later. 8. Dont let them in your home. Do not even crack the door without a judicial warrant.

Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations

Related Stories