False Confession Research Paper

A false confession is an “admission plus a post admission narrative of a crime that the confessor did not commit” (Leo, 2009). Research shows that individuals falsely confess to crimes that they have not committed (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Kassin et al., 2010). Interrogations have been seen to lead to false confessions, which individuals are then incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Some of these individuals are then later exonerated because of DNA evidence proving their innocence. Many of these cases are involving false confessions, which are given by individuals in coercive, police interrogations. “ In 15 to 20 percent of the DNA cases, police-induced false confessions were the primary cause of the wrongful conviction” (Leo, 2009). The

Voluntary false confessions, compliant false confessions, persuaded false confessions. A voluntary false confession is one that is given in the absence of police interrogation (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). These may be the result of a psychological disturbance, desire for notoriety or fame, need to expiate guilt over imagined or real acts, desire to protect a criminal, provide an alibi for a different crime, or for revenge (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). Compliant false confessions are given in agreement to police coercion or pressure. These are typically to escape from the stress of an interrogation, to take advantage of a perceived suggestion or promise of leniency, or to avoid an anticipated harsh punishment (Ofshe & Leo, 1997). Persuaded false confessions are those which occur when “ police interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and he becomes temporarily persuaded that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime, though he has no recollection of committing it (Leo, 2009). These types of false confessions cause suspects to suffer cognitive dissonance because of the accusers telling him that he committed a crime but the innocent suspect has no memory of it, so he believes that he just does not remember committing the crime. These types of false confessions occur much less than compliant false

this came up through the Supreme Court Decision in Miranda v. Arizona. There was concern with the powers of the state through law enforcement overbearing “the will of citizen suspects, thus threatening their Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination” (Kissin et. Al., 2009). The court required police officers to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel before confessions. This requirement exists to separate the threatening power that the police have relative to the suspect, hopefully reducing the likeliness of coercive confessions. In cases that involved challenges to the validity of the waiver of rights, courts were required to apply a test regarding the admissibility of the confession at trial (Kassin et al., 2009). If a waiver to the rights to silence and counsel was not made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, then statements made by a defendant would be inadmissible. After the Miranda rights decision came out, Gault made these rights apply to youth who faced delinquency charges in juvenile court. Though these rights exist, no research evidence exists that they really achieved their goal. Officers do give suspects a warning before they take statements, but research does not show that confessions are more or less reliable before the Miranda rights existed. Paul Cassell, had believed that the confession and