Lec 3/ Ch 3

Question 1

Police Interrogations

Answer 1

Police Interrogations

• Police interview a suspect to gather evidence and/or obtain a confession
• Prosecutor (accuse person committed crime)
• Confession is a type of evidence prosecutors and police officers want
• In some countries, ppl can be convicted based on their confession
• In North America, a confession needs to be backed up by form of evidence
• In the past: physical coercive tactics were used to extract confessions from suspects
• In mid 20^th C, whipping is used
• In 1970-80s, many torture tactics were used by Chicago police
• Physical coercion is less frequent, and is replaced by psychological interrogation
  
  • Ex. lying about evidence
  • Promise lenient treatment
  • Threats to loved ones
• Some officers think these techniques are needed to obtain confessions from uncooperative guilty persons
• Authorities support psychological coercion but not physical coercion

Question 2

Box 3.1 The Mr. Big Technique

• Describe
• Is it entrapment?
• Case: R.v. Mentruck
• Case: R.v. Hart
  
  • Probabtive

Answer 2

Box 3.1 The Mr. Big Technique

• Mr. Big Technique: noncustodial procedure, happens out of interrogation room
• Smith et al 2009
  
  • Undercover officers pose as members of a criminal organization who attempt to lure the suspect into the gang (ex. show how lucrative/profitable gang involvement can be)
  • Suspect is made to commit some minor crime; he/she may be rewarded
  • Then, if the suspect is committed to the organization, he/she is interviewed for a higher-level job
  • B4 the suspect can seal the deal w/ the boss Br. Big, he must confess a serious crime (the one under investigation)
  • Reason for the suspect to confess: “it is a form of insurance for the criminal gang, so they have smth on the suspect if he turns against them; so Mr. Big can use his connections to make the evidence/problem disappear”
  • Once they get the confession, it is used afainst the suspect in his trial
• Mr. Big technique is used quite often
• Ex. before 2004, it is used 350 times in Canada
• It is effective: 75% success rate, 95% conviction rate
• Ethical and legal questions
  
  • Q: Is it entrapment?
    
    • Entrapment (n): Inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit
    • A: No b/c the confession is for a previous crime not for any crimes that are committed during the uncover investigation.
    • Canadian courts typically considered this a “reasonable use of trickery”
• Case: R.v. Mentruck
  
  • Mr. Big Technique is permitted by Canadian courts
  • Ex. Canadian courts’ view
    
    • Mr. Big operation is used to get a confession about an event that occurred b4 the operation started
    • It is not for criminal activity during undercover operation
    • This type of operation is outside of Canadian definition of entrapment
    • Mr. Big technique is approved
• Case: R.v. Hart
  
  • Tighten parameters of future Mr. Big operations
  • SC state the risk of prejudice should only be ignored if the confession has high probative value
    
    • (ex. confirmatory evidence accompanying the confession outweighs the circumstances the confession was extracted)
    • Probative (adj.): Affording proof or evidence
  • SC also ate any action that cause a confession tb coerced from a suspect may be deemed unacceptable (ex. use violence, threats of violence, prey on vulnerabilities)
• IOW: ruling limits the admissibility of confessions in Canadian courts when confession are obtained by Mr. Big techniques

Question 3

The Reid Model of Interrogation

• 3 phases
• 9 steps in phase 3
• Assumption
• 2 types of psych tactics

Answer 3

The Reid Model of Interrogation

• Officers have training to interrogate suspects
• England and Wales use interrogation techniques that are less coercive than those in North America b/c they see that coercive techniques can lead to false confessions
• Reid model of interrogation
  
  • 9-step model to interrogate and extract confessions from suspects
  • Usually have 3 parts
  • Stage 1: gather evidence related to the crime and interview witnesses and victims
  • Stage 2: conduct a non-accusatorial interview of the suspect to assess if they are lying when they claim to be innocent
  • Stage 3: highlight of Reid technique
    
    • Conduct accusatorial interrogation of the suspect if he or she is perceived to be guilty
  • 9-steps
  • 1. Suspect is confronted w/ his/her guilt. If police do not have any evidence against the suspect, they can hide this fact and imply such evidence exists
  • 2. Psychological themes/explanations are developed so that the suspect can rationalize or excuse the crime
       * Ex. a murderer may be told the interrogators understand why hi committed the crime, and the crime is justified (given the victim is a criminal who had it coming???)
  • 3. Interrogator interrupts any statements of denial by the suspect to ensure the suspects does not get the upper hand in the interrogation
  • 4. Interrogator overcomes the suspect’s objections to the charges
       * Ex. suspect says I wasn’t there
       * Ex. police: Some evidence tells me you were
  • 5. If the suspect becomes withdrawn, the interrogator ensures he or she has the suspect’s attention and the suspect does not tune out of the interrogation
       * Ex. physically move closer to the suspect
  • 6. Interrogator shows sympathy and understanding; suspect is urged to come clean (ex. appeal to suspect’s sense of decency)
  • 7. The suspect if given explanation for the crime, which makes self-incrimination easier to achieve
       * Ex. instead of saying the suspect is involved in an intentional homicide, the interrogator suggest to a murder suspect that the crime they did was accidental (ex. result of an argument that went wrong)
  • 8. Once suspect accepts responsibility, aka agree w/ one of the alternative explanations, the interrogator develops this admission into a full confession for the crime
  • 9. Interrogator gets the suspect to write and sign a full confession
• Other ways to effectively interrogate suspects
  
  • Ex. use a plainly decorated interrogation room to avoid distractions
  • Ex. have evidence folder in your hand when beginning the interrogation
  • Ex. ensure the suspect is along in the interrogation suite b4 interrogator enters the room

Assumptions

• Reid model is based on the idea that people make choices they think will maximize their well-being given the constraints they face
• During the accusatory phase, suspect’s fear of confession outweighs their anxiety about remaining deceptive
  
  • IOW: Fear of confession is greater than their concern of lying to cops
  • The goal is to reverse this calculus with psychological tactics
  • Minimization techniques (“soft sell”): Lull suspect into false sense of security (e.g., moral justification, safe-saving excuses)
  • Maximization techniques (“hard sell”): Intimidate suspect
• It is based on the idea that during the accusatory phase of interrogation, the suspect’s fear of confessing is greater than the anxiety from being involved in crime
• The model uses psych tactics that attempts to reverse this; so the consequence of confession is more desirable than the anxiety related to the deception
• Ex. interrogators provide the suspects w/ a way to rationalize their behavior (ex. crime = accident)
  
  • this may reduce the perceived consequences of confessing
  • This may appeal to their sense of morality (ex. take responsibility is the right thing to do)
  • This in turn increase the anxiety associated w/ deception
• There are 2 types
  
  • 1. Minimization technique (aka soft sell)
       * Provide suspect w/ moral justification, face saving excuses for their crime
       * Ex. interrogator tells suspect that the victim deserved being robbed as he was drug dealer, and the suspect did a favor to everyone by robbing the victim
  • 2. Maximization techniques (aka scare tactics)
       * Interrogator tells suspect he believes he is guilty and denial will fail
       * Ex. interrogator makes accusations, interrupt denials, override objections, cite real or fake evidence, make suspect from confident to hopeless

Question 4

The Use of the Reid Model in Actual Interrogations

• Kassin et al 2007
  
  • What aspects of Reid model is commonly used
  • What aspects are less used
• King and Snook 2009
• True Detective Rust Cohle

Answer 4

The Use of the Reid Model in Actual Interrogations

• Kassin et al 2007
• Surveyed 630 officers on interrogation practices
• Results: Reid model of interrogation is used in actual interrogations but frequency of each technique varies
  
  • self-report survey of police investigators (N=631)
    
    • Some aspects of Reid model is commonly used: Isolating suspects and trying to establish rapport
    • Less common: Confronting suspects with guilt
    • Threatening suspects with consequences for not confession, rare - Not part of Reid model
• Since this is a self report, some of the responses may be biased
• King and Snook 2009
  
  • coded videotaped interrogations
  • Results: Interrogators did not always adhere to the core parts of Reid model
    
    • used Coercive strategies (less than 25%) NOT PART OF REID MODEL
    • confront suspects with guilt (80%)
    • Appeals to pride (60%)
  • The number of Reid techniques used was positively associated with extracted confessions (possible “third variable” → investigator effort)
    
    • Confound: investigators who think a person is guilty they may put in more effort, it may not necessarily be Reid Techniques
      
      • Ex. interrogator put more effort in interrogation when there is clearer evidence of a suspect’s guilt
      • The # of techniques used reflect this effort

True Detective Season 1: Rust Cohle

• Cohle: Master at extracting confessions—his special minimization tactic: offering subjects a glimpse of redemption
• Here, he gets a suspect in a robbery case to confess
• Interrogation of Charmaine Boudreaux
  
  • Charmaine suspected of killing her child
  • Has Munchausen syndrome by proxy: person (usually female) intentionally produces an illness in his or her child
    
    • Sometimes motivated by wanting the attention of others

Question 5

Potential Problems with the Reid Model of Interrogation

• 3 main problems
• 2 rights for those being interrogated
• Eastwood and Snook 2010
• 4 myths
  
  • Police use physically coercive interrogation tactics
  • officers can use psychologically based interrogation tactics
    
    • -ve cons
  • Rights
  • not all confessions ae valid

Answer 5

Potential Problems with the Reid Model of Interrogation

• 3 main problems
• 1. Ability of investigators to detect deception
• 2. Biases that may results when an interrogator believes incorrectly that a suspect is guilty
• 3. Coercive and suggestive nature of interrogation practices, and these practices may result in false confessions

Detecting deception

• There needs to be an accurate assessment on whether the suspects is deceptive when they claim to be innocent (in stage 2)
• Reid model of interrogation can help officers detect deception
• but there is little evidence showing that anyone can detect deception with accuracy even though they received specialized training
• Officers aren’t better than the avg person at detecting deception
  
  • Possible better approach: Teach people how to increase behavioural differences between truth-tellers and liars…but more work is needed.
• There are safeguards to protect ppl during the transition to the interrogation phase of the Reid model
  
  • Ex. Miranda rights in the US
  • Ex. Canada: Charter of Rights and Freedom states - suspect has the right to silence and legal counsel
  • Suspects have to voluntarily waive these rights, so that their statements can be used as evidence against them
  • Issue: These rights don’t really provide protection
• Issue 1: many ppl do not understand their rights when presented to them
• Eastwood and Snook 2010
  
  • Sample 56 undergrads
  • Half of them were enrolled in a police recruitment program
  • Methods: Show subjects the legal cautions presented to suspects (right to silence and legal counsel) in 2 forms (Verbal & written) one element at a time
    
    • Elements
      
      • 1. You need not say anything
      • 2. You have nothing to hope from any promise or favor
      • 3. You have nothing to fear from any threat
    • Results showed that presenting cautions in written format one element at a time leads to more comprehension
    • Self-reported confidence and demographic v did not predict comprehension
  • Conclusion: Suspects in interrogations do not fully comprehend their rights, and are unable to make a fully informed decision on whether or not they should waive their rights
  • This means suspects’ rights are not protected, and the evidence collected by the police in their interviews can be inadmissible in court
• Young ppl and those w/ impaired intellectual capacity are most vulnerable
• Eastwood et al 2015
  
  • HG students have very low levels of comprehension when presented w/ Canadian youth waivers in oral format
  • They only understood 40% of the material
  • This is b/c the waivers are lengthy and have difficult words

Box 3.2 Myths About Police Interrogations

• 1. Police may physically coercive interrogation tactics to get confessions from suspects (as seen in TV), but these are rarely used in North America
• 2. In Canada, officers can use psychologically based interrogation tactics (ex. trickery) to secure confessions (ex. exaggerate evidence)
     * Issue: these tactics can lead to -ve cons (ex. false confessions)
• 3. There are safeguards to protect individuals when interacting with police (ex. right to silence and legal counsel)
     * Rs showed that ppl don’t often understand these rights and cannot make an informed decision about whether they should waive their rights
• 4. Most confessions are valid and indicate the confessor committed the crime
     * False confessions can happen due to interrogation tactics
     
     • 30% of wrongful conviction cases come from false confessions

Box 3.3 Canadian Researcher Profile: Dr. Joseph Eastwood

• 3 main areas in research
• 1. Increase comprehension of interrogation rights be interviewees
     * Adult interrogation rights are written in a complex manner and ppl hv trouble understanding them
     * Simplifying the words and repeating each right multiple times increase comprehension greatly
     * This apply to youth populations
• 2. Enhance the ability of interviewers to gather accurate and complete accounts from eyewitnesses
     * Measyre the effectiveness of sketch procedures (i.e. draw out the details of the event) to complement verbal recall of witnessed event
     * Prev rs: having interviewees draw out the account is effective to produce more details than simple verbal recall
• 3. Examine the role of alibis w/in the criminal justice system
     * Examine factors that police officers attend to when trying to decide whether the alibi is true
     * Rs showed that having multiple ppl available to corroborate/confirm an alibi (esp when they have no personal connection to the suspect) leads to more believable alibis

Question 6

Problem 2 w/ Reid model: Investigator bias

• Kassin et al 2003

Answer 6

Investigator bias

• Police begin their interrogation believing the suspect to be guilty
• When ppl form a belief about something b4 entering a situation they unknowingly seek out and interpret info in that situation that verifies their initial belief
• Kassin et al 2003
  
  • Looked at potential dangers from investigator bias
  • Mock interrogation study: students act as interrogators or suspects
  • Some interrogators believe the suspect was guilty of a mock crime
  • Others led to believe the suspect was innocent
  • In reality, some are guilty, some are innocent
  • Interrogators were told to devise and interrogation strategy to use on suspects
  • Suspects were told to deny any involvement in the crime, and convince the interrogator of their innocence
  • neutral observers watched the taped interrogation
  • Results
    
    • 1. Interrogators w/ guilty expectations asked more qs showing they believe the suspect is guilty
    • 2. Interrogators w/ guilty expectations used more interrogation techniques compared w/ those w/ innocent expectations
         * Esp in the start/outset of the interrogation
    • 3. Interrogators w/ guilty expectations judged more suspects tb guilty regardless of whether the suspect is actually guilty
    • 4. Interrogators unconsciously used more pressure on suspects to confess even when the suspect was innocent
    • 5. Suspects has accurate perceptions of interrogator b (ex. innocent suspects believe their interrogators were giving more pressure)
    • 6. Neutral observers view interrogators w. guilty expectations as more coercive esp against innocent suspects; they view suspects in the guilty expectation condition as more defensive
    • Result: Interrogators with guilty expectations
      
      • asked more questions that implied guilt
      • used more interrogation techniques
      • behaved more coercively, esp against innocent suspects, who became more defensive
  • Conclusion: investigative biases led to coercive interrogation that cause innocent suspects to look more guilty to interrogator and neutral observer

Question 7

Interrogation Practices and the Courts

Answer 7

Interrogation Practices and the Courts

• Trial judge decides whether to admit confession evidence into court
• In North America, the judge needs to consider if the confession is made voluntarily and whether the defendant (accused) was competent when providing the confession
• This is b/c involuntary confessions and confessions provided when the person is unstable is pretty unreliable
• Confessions from overt coercion (ex. physical force, prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation) is inadmissible in North America courts
• When we use subtle forms of coercion (ex. Reid technique), we can’t tell if the confession is “voluntary” and “competent”
• Results in inconsistent/contradictory rulings on questionable confessions

Box 3.4 The Admissibility of Confession Evidence: Court Rulings in R. v. Oickle (2000) and R. v. Chapple (2012)

• SCC case: R. v. Oickle (2000)
  
  • Oickle confessed to 7 counts of arson (set fires)
  • Police interrogation used questionable interrogation techniques to obtain confession
    
    • Ex. exaggerate the polygraph exam is accurate
    • Imply psychiatric help is provided if the defendant confessed
    • Minimize the seriousness of crimes
    • Suggest confessions would spare Oickle’s GF from undergoing a stressful interrogation
  • Trail judge – rules the confession admissible, and convicted him on all counts
  • Court of appeal judge – deem confession inadmissible, enter an acquittal (person is not guilty of crimes being charged)
  • SCC ruling: confession is admissible, conviction stands despite interrogation techniques from police
  • SC laid out a 4-point framework to determine if a confession is deemed voluntary
  • 1. The court must consider whether the police made any threats or promises
  • 2. The court must look for and atmosphere of oppression (ex. unjust/inhumane treatment)
  • 3. Court must consider whether the suspect had an “operating mind” in that they were aware of what they were saying, and who they were saying it to
  • 4. The court must consider the degree of police trickery that was used to extract the confession (while trickery is allowed, is should not “shock the community”)
• Case: R.v. Chapple (2012)
  
  • Judge harshly criticized the interrogation tactics used by the interrogator
  • Deemed the suspect’s confession inadmissible
  • Chapple – self-employed daycare operator, accused of being responsible for serious head injuries suffered by one of the kids in her care
  • Interrogated about her involvement in the case
  • Interrogation lasted 8+ hours even though she asserted her right to remain silent on 24 separate occasions during the interrogation
  • Interrogator kept questioning her
  • Interrogator criticized the legal advice give in Chapple and suggested (untruthfully) suggested that medical evidence about the injuries did not support the conclusion described by the accused
  • SC judge found Chapple’s free will was compromised due to interrogating tactics, and she simply told the police what they wanted to hear
  • Judge state:
    
    • there is no law prohibiting using the Reid technique, but it violates one’s rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and remain silent
    • Stated the technique led to false confession and cause innocent people wrongly imprisoned
    • Police were convinced the accused is guilty even though the medical evidence available is consistent w/ the accused alibi

Question 8

An Alternative to the Reid Model - PEACE model

• Goal of Reid model vs PEACE model
• Which 2 countries use it
• What does PEACE =?
• New term for interrogation?
• PEACE vs Reid model
• Meissner and Russano (2003)
  *

Answer 8

• 2 goals of interrogation: gets confession and get info
  
  • Reid model: focus on extracting confession
  • PEACE model: focus on get info
• Courts in England and Wales restricted use of many techniques in Reid model of interrogation
• Used PEACE model to reduce oppressive interrogation practices
• P = planning
• E = engage and explain
• A = account
• C = closure
• E = evaluation
• Meissner and Russano 2003
  
  • This model provides an inquisitorial framework (rather than an accusatorial framework from the Reid model)
  • This is based on an interview method known as conversation management which encourages info gathering rather than securing confession
• replaced the term “interrogation” with “investigative interviewing” = remove -ve connotation
• Some evidence suggests that the PEACE model works as effectively as the Reid-type techniques
• Meissner and Russano (2003)
  
  • Ex. 50% of all suspects confessed to crimes b4 and after the PEACE model was introduced
• Canadian rs want to replace interrogation techniques in Canada w/ the PEACE model
• Want investigators to obtain accurate info about the crime rather than getting confessions
• Snook et al 2012
  
  • Examined 80 Canadian police interviews w/ suspects
  • Canadian interrogators rarely rely on practices that maximize accurate info collection
  • Ex. open-ended qs is used less than 1% and close-ended qs used 40%; even though rs showed that and interviewed can extract more accurate info from suspects when the interviewee do most of the talking
• Currently, at least one Canadian police force (Royal Newfoundland Constabulary) adopted the PEACE model as primary interview strategy

Question 9

False Confessions

• What causes this?
  
  • False confessions
  • Retracted confessions
  • Disputed confession
• 3 Types of false confessions
• 1. voluntary false confessions
     * 4 reasons
     * Ex. Lindbergh’s bb
• 2. Coerced-compliant false confessions
     * Case: R. v. M.J.S.
• 3. Coerced internalized false confessions
     * 3 risk factors that lead to this type of false confession
     * Case: Kassin 2007 - Billy Cope

Answer 9

False Confessions

• Coercive interrogations can lead to false confessions
• False confessions: a confessions that is either intentionally fabricated OR is not based on actual knowledge of the facts that form its content
• Retracted confessions: a confession that the confessor later declares to be false (retract)
• Disputed confession: confession that is later disputed at trial (questionable)
  
  • It does not mean the confession is false or retracted

The Frequency of False Confessions

• Difficult to determine if a confession is actually false
• The fact the confession is coerced does not mean the confession is false
• Unsure about the exact frequency of false confessions
• A conviction based on confession evidence does not mean the confession is true
• The causes very different estimate on how frequently false confessions happen
  
  • Ex false confessions among inmates: .6% vs 12%
• To estimate false confession rates, rs look at the causes of wrongful convictions
  
  • Look at ppl who have been exonerated for their crimes
  • Determine if the a false confession was to blame for the wrongful conviction
  • Study looked at 240 cases where prisoners were exonerated through DNA testing
  • Results: 24% of cases contained false confessions as a contributing cause of the wrongful conviction

Different Types of False Confessions

• Kassin and Wrightsman 1985
• Types of false confessions
  
  • 1. Voluntary false confessions
  • 2. Coerced complaint false confessions
  • 3. Coerced internalized false confessions

Voluntary false confessions

• Someone voluntarily confess to a crime he or she did not commit w/o any elicitation from police (aka from police)
• Gudjonsson 1992
• Reasons why ppl voluntarily false confess
• 1. Morbid desire or notoriety
• 2. Person unable to distinguish fact from fantasy
• 3. Need to make up for pathological feelings of guilt by receiving punishment
• 4. Desire to project someone else from harm (common among juveniles)
• Highly publicized cases sometimes result in voluntary false confessions
• Ex. Kidnap and murder of Lindbergh’s son
  
  • 200 ppl falsely confessed to the crime
• Ex. John Karr falsely confessed to the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey (beauty pageant queen), but said she died b/c of accident
  
  • Didn’t charge him b/c no DNA match
  • But was charged w/ other things (ex. child porn)

Coerced-compliant false confessions

• Caused by coercive interrogation tactics
  
  • Ex. maximization and minimization
  • Coercive compliant confessions are given so the suspect can
  • 1. Escape further interrogation
  • 2. Gain promised benefit
  • 3. Avoid a. threatened punishment

Box 3.5 A Coerced-Compliant False Confession in a Canadian Child Abuse Case

• Case: R. v. M.J.S.
• MJS was accused of aggravated assault on his bb son, J.S.
• He gave a confession and was charged for the crime
• J.S. was 3 mo when the abuse happened
• The boy was admitted to the hospital for a suspected chest infection and vomiting problems
• X-rays were taken and the bb had rib fractures
• The injuries were unusual for a bb this young
• The pediatrician notified child welfare
• The expert stated the most likely cause of the fractures was that the bb was shaken
• Police investigation began
• MJS and which cooperated
• On 4 occasions, police interrogated the accused
• During the interrogations, police used techniques used in Reid model of interrogation, which led the accused to confess
• All the interrogations were videotaped, this provided courts to determine whether the confession was coerced
• The interrogation includes developing psychological themes to justify the crime
• Ex. the officer says I believe it is an accident, you made a mistake
• Every time the accused denied his involvement, the officers interrupted by saying we know you did it
• Officers also lied about they talked to everyone else who may be involved w/ the incident and cleared them all – this didn’t happen
• Officers appealed the accused’s sense of honor and decency, and stressed it would feel way better if he would just confess
• Then, officers gave threatened the accused: if you don’t confess, your family disintegrates and your kids are stuck in a foster home
• The judge stated the confession was extracted using threats and implied promises; the interrogation techniques were coercive, thus the evidence is inadmissible

Coerced internalized false confessions

• Bizarre
• False confession results from suggestive interrogation techniques, the confessor actually believes he/she committed the crime
• Gudjonsson 1992
• Vulnerability factors associated w/ this type of false confession
• 1. History of substance abuse or other interference w/ brain function
• 2. Inability of ppl to detect discrepancies b/w what they observed and what has been erroneously suggested to them
• 3. Factors associated w/ mental state, ex. sever anxiety, confusion, feelings of guilt
• It’s rare
• Kassin 2007
• Billy Cope was convicted of rape and murder of his 12 yo daughter (Amanda)
• Cope woke up and found his daughter dead
• He called police and was treated as a suspect by the police based on a wrong first impression (there was no sign of forced entry, and Cope showed little emotion)
• Cope underwent lengthy interrogation, denied involvement w/ the murder, waived his rights, volunteered to take polygraph test
• He was told he failed the polygraph test in which he didn’t
• He was devastated and thought if a person can commit such an act w/o knowing it (an idea suggested by interrogators last night)
• He then gave a full narrative and re-enactment of the murder
• DNA test revealed the semen on Amanda’s body was not from Cope, but a sex offender who raped and killed o ther young girls the same way Amanda was killed
• The police lied to Cope’s wife and told her semen was Cope’s and persuaded her to visit Cope so he will confess to a crime he didn’t do
• Prosecutor charged Cope w/ conspiracy; he pimped his daughter out to the sex offender
• Supported by a friend from Cope’s wife: Cope wrote letters to his wife during jail
  
  • This friend was charged w/ forging evidence in another matter
• Cope denied writing notes, as he had no pen and paper, and the handwriting wasn’t his
• Jury still convicted Cope

Question 10

Studying False Confessions in the Lab

• Kassin and Kiechel 1996
  
  • Methods
  • Results
    
    • Internalization
    • Confabulation
• Shaw & Porter 2015 - results

Answer 10

Studying False Confessions in the Lab

Kassin and Kiechel 1996

• Tested if ppl will confess to a “crime” they did not commit
• Someone read the letters and Participant had to type the letters into a computer
• ppl were told if they hit the ALT key while typing, all the data would be lost
• 60s later, the computer crashed
• Rs blamed the participant had hit the key
• Rs wanted to know how 2 factors would affect participant rx to the allegations
• 1. Participant vulnerability (defined as the participant’s certainty concerning his or her own innocence)
     * Manipulated by varying the speed that participant had to type
     * “not vulnerable” – letters were read at a rate of 43 letters per minute
     * “vulnerable” – letters were read at a rate of 67 letters/min
• 2. Rs varied whether false evidence was presented
     * “no false evidence” – co-conspirator stated she didn’t see what happened
     * “false evidence” – she stated she saw the participant hit the ALT key
• Rs measured the degree ppl showed compliance w/ allegations
  
  • 1. Rs presented each participant w/ a written confession and recorded how many participants signed it
  • Many ppl accepted responsibility for the crime despite the fact that they were innocent, esp the vulnerable participants presented w/ false evidence
• Rs measured the degrees to which ppl internalized their confession
  
  • Rs recorded comments made by participants to another co-conspirator outside the lab who asked them what had happened
  • Internalization: he/she accepted blame for the crime
  • This is esp true for vulnerable participants presented w/ false evidence
• Rs measured confabulation
  
  • Confabulation: the degree to which ppl made up details to fit w/ their confession
  • So, rs brought participant back into the lab, read the list of letters again, and ask ppl to try to reconstruct where things had gone wrong
  • Vulnerable participants presented w/ false evidence were once again found to be particularly susceptible to confabulation
• The findings suggest that in labs, ppl can admit to acts that as they are not responsible for and come to believe their guilt to a point that they can reconstruct details of an act that never happened
• Can’t generalize this results b/c it fails to capture element in real world interrogations
• 1. The ppl in the study have nothing to lose if they can’t convince others of their innocence; real suspects have much to lose if they are found guilty
• 2. All ppl in the study were actually innocent of the crime; all suspects in real interrogations aren’t
• 3. While ppl in the study can easily been confused about their guilt (may have hit the key) real suspects aren’t confused about their involvement in crime
• New studies: even these issues are accounted for, ppl can still be coerced to confess crimes that they didn’t commit using tactics that are used in police interrogations
• Shaw & Porter 2015
  
  • Recent rs: we can convince uni students they committed crimes as teens they didn’t actually commit and to confess those crimes
  • Rs used suggestive interview techniques, and more ppl developed false memories from crime, even when these crimes are serious ones (ex. assault w/ a weapon)
  • Also, many ppl can recount events about the crime w/ concrete details; which is smth seen in real world cases of coerced false confessions

Question 11

The Consequences of Falsely Confessing

• 4 cons
• Kassin and Sukel 1997

Answer 11

The Consequences of Falsely Confessing

• 1.False confessions, if admitted in court, can convict a suspect for a crime he/she didn’t do
• Lab studies shows that jurors may be likely to convict a suspect based on confession evidence even when jurors are aware that the suspect’s confession resulted from coercive interrogation
• Kassin and Sukel 1997
  
  • Randomly assigned ppl into 3 gps w/ diff transcripts on the mock murder trial
  • Gp 1: the transcript showed the defendant immediately confessed to the police during questioning (low pressure condition)
  • Gp 2: transcript showed that defendant was coerced into confessing by having his hands handcuffed and threatened by the interrogator (high P condition)
  • Gp 3: transcript showed the defendant never confessed the murder (control)
  • Results: ppl presented w/ a confession obtained in hip P condition recognized the confession was involuntary and said it will not affect their decisions
    
    • However, in the actual verdicts, the presence of a confession sig increases the conviction rate, even for those ppl in the high P condition
• Rs suggest that many genuine false confessions are likely to be viewed as evidence of guilt by potential jurors
• Appleby et al 2013
  
  • Stated 3 reasons why jurors are unlikely to identify confessions by innocent ppl as false, and thus use them as the basis for guilty verdicts
  • 1. Based on common sense, jurors are unlikely to believe a person will be willing to make statements that counter self-interest, even during police interrogation
  • 2. Due to problems w/ deception detection, ppl can’t accurately distinguish b/w T and F confessions
  • 3. False confession are often very similar to true confessions in form and content
       * Ex. rs analyzed 10 genuine false confessions
       * Results: like true confessions, false confessions have specific visual and auditory details about the crime and victim(s) as well as references to the confessors, thoughts feelings, motives during and after the crime
  • These features increase confidence in mock jurors that the confessions were an indication of guilt
• Cons 1: Rs showed that confession evidence, including false evidence appear more corroborative (confirm evidence) than it really is
• Kassin et al 2012
  
  • Analyzed DNA exoneration (absolve ppl from blame) cases from the innocence project
  • Multiple evidence errors (ex. improper use of eyewitness identification, informants) were more likely in cases in false confessions
  • Among Cases w/ multiple errors associated w/ false evidence, false confession was most likely to hv been obtained first
  • This suggest the confession skewed the subsequent investigation/interpretative processes
  • Rs suggest that knowledge of a confession may have increased the motivation of subsequence witnesses to help police and prosecutors to make suspect guilty
• Cons 2: when someone makes a false confession, police are diverted down a false trail, which waste valuable time to identify the apprehend the real offender
  
  • Ex. Lindbergh kidnap, Ramsey murder case
  • Howitt 202
    
    • Yorkshire Ripper serial murder investigation in UK
    • During investigation, police were sent several taps recording the Ripper
    • Senior police think the tapes were genuine and used up resources investigating the tapes
    • The tapes were not genuine, and this delayed the eventual arrest of Sutcliffe and more murders happened
• 1 Suspects get convicted for crimes they didn’t commit
• 2 Jurors are influenced by confessions
  
  • Kassin and Sukel (1997) found
    
    • even when jurors recognize high-pressure interrogation situations and explicitly say it won’t influence their decision; it did, and the presence of confessions increases conviction rate
    • Jurors think Convicting confessors is common sense: Why would someone go against their self-interest?
    • Jurors can’t detect lies
    • False confessions are similar to true confessions (articulate details)
• 3 Confessions taint other evidence in the case; can skew interpretation of other evidence
• 4 Police diverted down a false path – waste time and resources