the interrogation and false confession link: beyond common knowledge?
Post on 22-Mar-2016
99 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Interrogation The Interrogation and False Confession and False Confession
Link: Beyond Link: Beyond Common Knowledge?Common Knowledge?
Presented at:Presented at:The UC Irvine The UC Irvine
Undergraduate Research Undergraduate Research SymposiumSymposium
By:By:Jaclyn ApplebyJaclyn Appleby
May 13, 2006May 13, 2006
Interrogation’s Evolution: Interrogation’s Evolution: Third degree to confidence Third degree to confidence
gamegame
The Advent of Psychological The Advent of Psychological InterrogationInterrogation
Psychological Psychological InterrogationInterrogation Repeatedly accusing the Repeatedly accusing the
suspect of a crimesuspect of a crime Repeatedly attacking the Repeatedly attacking the
suspect’s alibisuspect’s alibi Repeatedly interrupting Repeatedly interrupting
the suspect’s denialsthe suspect’s denials The lie detector testThe lie detector test Exaggerating/lying about Exaggerating/lying about
evidenceevidence Providing moral Providing moral
justifications/face saving justifications/face saving alternativesalternatives
The Myth of Psychological The Myth of Psychological Interrogation:Interrogation:
Innocent people do not Innocent people do not confess…confess… Anecdotal evidence suggests that Anecdotal evidence suggests that
the general public believes that the the general public believes that the use of psychology is not sufficiently use of psychology is not sufficiently coercive to elicit a false confession.coercive to elicit a false confession.
It is highly counter intuitive to It is highly counter intuitive to believe that someone would confess believe that someone would confess to a crime they did not commit to a crime they did not commit outside of the bounds of physical outside of the bounds of physical coercion, as doing so is in such coercion, as doing so is in such obvious violation of self-interest.obvious violation of self-interest.
False Confessions Do False Confessions Do Occur…Occur… Archival analyses identify false Archival analyses identify false
confession casesconfession cases Leo and Ofshe (1998) identified 60Leo and Ofshe (1998) identified 60 Drizin and Leo (2004) identified 125Drizin and Leo (2004) identified 125
Researchers have produced false Researchers have produced false confessions in the laboratoryconfessions in the laboratory Kassin and Kiechel (1996)Kassin and Kiechel (1996) Russano, Meissner, Narchet, and Russano, Meissner, Narchet, and
Kassin (2005) Kassin (2005)
……and they are damning and they are damning evidenceevidence
The mere presence of a confession The mere presence of a confession drastically increases the likelihood of drastically increases the likelihood of conviction (Kassin & Sukel, 1997) .conviction (Kassin & Sukel, 1997) .
Confession evidence returns higher Confession evidence returns higher conviction rates than either eyewitness conviction rates than either eyewitness testimony or character testimony testimony or character testimony (Kassin & Neumann, 1997). (Kassin & Neumann, 1997).
Studies have estimated that a false Studies have estimated that a false confessor faces a 78-85% risk of being confessor faces a 78-85% risk of being wrongfully convicted if the case is not wrongfully convicted if the case is not dismissed prior to trial (Leo & Ofshe, dismissed prior to trial (Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Drizin & Leo, 2004).1998; Drizin & Leo, 2004).
How do we protect the How do we protect the wrongfully accused from wrongfully accused from their false confession?their false confession?
Improved police training and education on the Improved police training and education on the phenomenon of false confessionsphenomenon of false confessions
Mandatory electronic recording of Mandatory electronic recording of interrogations and confessions to provide an interrogations and confessions to provide an objective recordobjective record
Changing the law to require confessions to Changing the law to require confessions to meet a standard of reliability prior to meet a standard of reliability prior to admissionadmission
Expert witness testimony to educate Expert witness testimony to educate judge and jury on the coerciveness judge and jury on the coerciveness of police interrogation and the of police interrogation and the possibility of the elicitation of false possibility of the elicitation of false confessionsconfessions
Expert Witness Expert Witness AdmissibilityAdmissibility The Federal Rules of The Federal Rules of
Evidence provide a Evidence provide a standard for courts to standard for courts to allow “scientific, allow “scientific, technical, or other technical, or other specialized knowledge specialized knowledge [when it] assists the trier [when it] assists the trier of fact to understand of fact to understand evidence or to determine evidence or to determine a fact in issue” (Fed. R. a fact in issue” (Fed. R. Evid. 702). Evid. 702).
In order to assist the trier In order to assist the trier of fact, the knowledge of fact, the knowledge that the expert witness that the expert witness brings to the case must brings to the case must be beyond that of the be beyond that of the average person.average person.
What does the average What does the average person hold as common person hold as common
knowledge?knowledge? We do not know…We do not know… There has never been a published There has never been a published
survey of public perceptions of the survey of public perceptions of the coerciveness of interrogation coerciveness of interrogation techniques and their ability to elicit techniques and their ability to elicit true and false confessions.true and false confessions.
The current study seeks to fill this The current study seeks to fill this empirical gap and determine what the empirical gap and determine what the average person, as a potential juror, average person, as a potential juror, believes in relationship to the believes in relationship to the coerciveness of interrogation and the coerciveness of interrogation and the elicitation of confessions.elicitation of confessions.
Does the general public Does the general public acknowledge the coerciveness of acknowledge the coerciveness of
psychological interrogation?psychological interrogation?
Central QuestionsCentral Questions
Does the general public believe that Does the general public believe that psychological interrogation tactics can psychological interrogation tactics can
elicit false confessions?elicit false confessions?
ParticipantsParticipants Surveys distributed to 268 UCI Surveys distributed to 268 UCI
undergraduates enrolled in an undergraduates enrolled in an introductory criminology classintroductory criminology class Jury eligible populationJury eligible population Proximity to researchersProximity to researchers
DemographicsDemographics GenderGender
AgeAge Mean age 19.78Mean age 19.78
VictimizationVictimization 19.6% had been victim of serious crime19.6% had been victim of serious crime
Death Penalty SupportDeath Penalty Support
36%
64%
malefemale
46%
21%
33% SupportDo Not SupportUnsure
Survey MeasuresSurvey Measures Perceived coerciveness of interrogation Perceived coerciveness of interrogation
techniquestechniques Rate the degree to which you believe that each Rate the degree to which you believe that each
tactic is “coercive” (i.e., removes an individual’s tactic is “coercive” (i.e., removes an individual’s perception of their freedom to make a meaningful perception of their freedom to make a meaningful choice) during a police interrogation; 1= not at all choice) during a police interrogation; 1= not at all coercive, 5= extremely coercivecoercive, 5= extremely coercive
Perceived likelihood of interrogation Perceived likelihood of interrogation techniques to elicit true confessions and false techniques to elicit true confessions and false confessionsconfessions Rate the likelihood that each of the following tactics Rate the likelihood that each of the following tactics
would elicit a true confession from the suspect would elicit a true confession from the suspect during the interrogation; 1= not at all likely, 5= very during the interrogation; 1= not at all likely, 5= very likelylikely
Subtle indicatorsSubtle indicators Importance that police have a confession to solve a Importance that police have a confession to solve a
casecase Estimated time needed to elicit a confessionEstimated time needed to elicit a confession
CoercivenessCoerciveness With the exception of giving a suspect a With the exception of giving a suspect a
lie detector test, each of the techniques lie detector test, each of the techniques was rated as coercive (>3).was rated as coercive (>3).
Lying to the suspect is seen as particularly Lying to the suspect is seen as particularly coercive coercive The lie detector’s coerciveness rating The lie detector’s coerciveness rating
increased by 163% when the clause “and increased by 163% when the clause “and falsely telling them the results show they are falsely telling them the results show they are lying” is added (4.24).lying” is added (4.24).
Each technique utilizing a lie about evidence Each technique utilizing a lie about evidence (surveillance, DNA, fingerprint) received (surveillance, DNA, fingerprint) received coerciveness ratings exceeding 4.0.coerciveness ratings exceeding 4.0.
0
1
2
3
4
5
giving suspect liedetector test
falsely telling themresults show they'relying
CoercivenessCoerciveness Positive Coercion BiasPositive Coercion Bias
Implicit or explicit promises of Implicit or explicit promises of leniency were viewed as less coercive leniency were viewed as less coercive than implicit or explicit threats of than implicit or explicit threats of harm.harm.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Promises ofleniency
Threats of harm
ImplicitExplicit
Likelihood of eliciting Likelihood of eliciting confessionsconfessions With the exception of direct threat of With the exception of direct threat of
physical violence and beating the physical violence and beating the subject, interrogation techniques were subject, interrogation techniques were rated as significantly* more likely to rated as significantly* more likely to elicit true than false confessions.elicit true than false confessions.
The smallest variations in significant The smallest variations in significant likelihoods were seen for implicit likelihoods were seen for implicit (t=3.598) or explicit threats (t=4.578) (t=3.598) or explicit threats (t=4.578) of physical harm.of physical harm.
*Significance p<.001
2
3
4
ImplicitThreats of
Harm
ExplicitThreats of
Harm
True Confessions
FalseConfessions
Likelihood of eliciting Likelihood of eliciting confessionsconfessions Of the remaining techniques, the ones that Of the remaining techniques, the ones that
were rated as most coercive (i.e. lying about were rated as most coercive (i.e. lying about lie detector results/evidence) were rated as lie detector results/evidence) were rated as unlikely to cause a false confession (<3).unlikely to cause a false confession (<3).
Overall, people believe that interrogation Overall, people believe that interrogation techniques, though coercive work to elicit techniques, though coercive work to elicit true confessions and do not elicit false true confessions and do not elicit false confessions with any frequency.confessions with any frequency.
0
1
2
3
4
5
lying about liedetector
falsesurveillenceevidence
false DNAevidence
falsefingerprintevidence
coercivenesslikelihood of true confessionlikelihood of false confession
Subtle IndicatorsSubtle Indicators Rated confessions as Rated confessions as
less important to less important to solving a case than solving a case than both DNA and both DNA and eyewitness eyewitness testimony.testimony. Mock-jurors have Mock-jurors have
demonstrated that demonstrated that confessions lead to confessions lead to convictions more convictions more frequently than frequently than eyewitness testimony.eyewitness testimony.
Subtle IndicatorsSubtle Indicators Mean estimate of time needed to elicit Mean estimate of time needed to elicit
a confession was 7.88 hours, nearly a confession was 7.88 hours, nearly five times the average interrogation five times the average interrogation time as reported by police time as reported by police investigators (Leo et al, forthcoming).investigators (Leo et al, forthcoming). As interrogation duration increases, the As interrogation duration increases, the
likelihood of eliciting a false confession likelihood of eliciting a false confession also increases.also increases.
FALSE FALSE CONFESSIONCONFESSION
SS
SummarySummary While it appears on the face of the issue While it appears on the face of the issue
that the average person has sophisticated that the average person has sophisticated knowledge on the coerciveness of knowledge on the coerciveness of interrogation techniques, they lack interrogation techniques, they lack knowledge about the links between knowledge about the links between interrogation and confession.interrogation and confession.
Though preliminary, this is the first Though preliminary, this is the first demonstration that the average person demonstration that the average person does not understand the link between does not understand the link between coercive interrogation and false coercive interrogation and false confessions, thus the belief in the myth of confessions, thus the belief in the myth of psychological interrogation has received psychological interrogation has received preliminary empirical support.preliminary empirical support.
Beyond Common Beyond Common Knowledge?Knowledge?
It appears that people understand It appears that people understand that interrogation is coercive, so an that interrogation is coercive, so an expert witness explaining that expert witness explaining that interrogation techniques are coercive interrogation techniques are coercive would not be necessary to educate would not be necessary to educate the jury.the jury.
An expert talking about how coercive An expert talking about how coercive interrogation tactics can lead to a interrogation tactics can lead to a false confession would be beneficial false confession would be beneficial to a jury and could help to serve as a to a jury and could help to serve as a safeguard for the wrongfully accused.safeguard for the wrongfully accused.
Thank you to:Thank you to: Dr. Richard LeoDr. Richard Leo Dr. Jodi QuasDr. Jodi Quas Dr. Valerie JennessDr. Valerie Jenness Undergraduate Research Undergraduate Research
Opportunities ProgramOpportunities Program Research participantsResearch participants
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
For further informationFor further informationPlease direct correspondence to:Please direct correspondence to:
Jaclyn N. ApplebyJaclyn N. ApplebyDepartment of Criminology, Law, and Department of Criminology, Law, and
SocietySocietyUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of California, Irvine
jappleby@uci.edujappleby@uci.edu
top related