PSY4018
Summary problem 1: No one confesses to something they did not do
1. Types of false confessions
- 3 types; explain similarities & differences
False confession = when an innocent person makes a false admission of guilt and subsequently
produces postadmission narrative, which includes details about how or why the crime was
committed. / A false confession is an admission to a criminal act— usually accompanied by a
narrative of how and why the crime occurred—that the confessor did not commit.
1) Voluntary false confessions: self-incriminating statements offered without external pressure
2) Coerced-compliant false confessions: self-incriminating statements offered to escape from
aversive interrogation, avoid an explicit or implicit threat, or gain a promised or implied
reward.
3) Coerced-internalized false confessions: self-incriminating statements that are actually
believed by the innocent suspect by means of highly suggestive procedures, tiredness or
confusion.
Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, Redlich (2009) Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and
Recommendations
Confessions may be deemed false when:
1) It is later discovered that no crime was committed
2) Additional evidence shows it was physically impossible for the confessor to have committed
the crime
3) The real perpetrator, having no connection with the defendant is linked to the crime
4) Scientific evidence affirmatively establishes the confessor’s innocence (DNA)
2. Which factors facilitate false confessions?
- Dispositional (Kassin) and situational (Gudjonsson)
- List all of them (+examples)
- Explain how they can lead to a false confession
- What do we know about the Reid Technique
Psychological vulnerability (Gudjonsson)
- Mental disorders (ADHD, depression, psychosis)
Troubles with perception, emotion, cognition, self-control and reality monitoring
Fail to provide detailed and coherent statements
- Intellectual disabilities
Difficulty in understanding legal rights and interview questions
Problems with memory capacity & more sensitive to suggestion & prone to confabulation
- Abnormal mental states
Problems in functioning in stressful situation due to extreme distress (e.g. alcohol,
substances, medical symptoms, detention circumstances)
- Personality characteristics - related to unreliable and inaccurate statements
Suggestibility: personal acceptance of questions or information
Compliance: complying with requests and instructions for immediate instrumental gain
These vulnerabilities are best viewed as risk factors. Psychologically vulnerable suspects are at
increased risk of providing untruthful statements and/or false confessions, particularly in conjunction
with inappropriate interrogation techniques.
,PSY4018
Gudjonsson (2002) – Unreliable confessions and miscarriages of justice in Britain
Psychological vulnerability; borderline, memory distrust syndrome, poor self-esteem, suggestibility,
compliance, anxiety; use GSS or GCS is sufficient for determining a mental condition that has a
bearing upon determining the safety of a conviction.
Police impropriety or other professional malpractice (coercion, abuse, suppression of evidence,
alteration of interview records, suppression of exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence etc.)
The general thrust of the legal criteria developed over the past 10 years has broadened the
admissibility of expert testimony to include abnormally marked personality traits (e.g. extreme
suggestibility, compliance, anxiety proneness, poor self-esteem, impulsivity). Of course, these must
be of the type to render a confession potentially unreliable (i.e their relevance to the disputed
confession must be demonstrated). Admissibility of expert testimony is no longer restricted to
conditions of mental or psychiatric disorder, such as mental illness, learning disability, or personality
disorder.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Young, S. (2006). An overlooked vulnerability in a defendant: Attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder and a miscarriage of justice
ADHD
- Poor attentional control
Impaired sustained attention over a prolonged period of time during trial
- High levels of impulsivity
Poor behavioural control
Impairment in response inhibition
(Poor intellectual functioning) attentional problems and distractibility are likely to be exacerbated
when performing under stress (in a witness box).
In police interrogation setting:
- Defendant used right to silence; failure to answer the questions
Implications to effectively participate in trial
- Problems with sustained attention and poor behavioural control (e.g. giving impulsive and ill-
considered answers, which might be misconstrued by the jury)
In order to be fit to stand trial the defendant must, on the balance of probabilities, be able to do all
of the following six things:
1) Understand the charges
2) Decide whether to plead guilty or not
3) Exercise his or her right to challenge jurors
4) Instruct solicitors and counsel
5) Follow the court proceedings
6) Give evidence in one’s defence if the person wants to.
With regard to giving evidence, this means that the defendant must be able to:
a) Understand the questions he is aske in the witness box
b) To apply his mind to answering them
c) To convey intelligibly to the jury the answers which he wishes to gives
ADHD affects IQ scores
- Attentional problems and high impulsivity are likely to impair the person’s genuine performance
as points are lost through lack of focus and impulsive errors
- ADHD is associated with academic failure and school truancy, which makes the person unlikely to
fulfil his or her full educational and intellectual potential.
, PSY4018
Recommendations
- A comprehensive ADHD assessment, including neuropsychological testing, is necessary where
there are indications of a history of childhood ADHD.
- Include regular breaks during trial
- Avoid lengthy questions and complex language structures
- Ensure that important info is put across directly and simply
Kassin (2005) On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?
Paradoxical effect that innocence may put innocents at risk
This paradoxical effect may reside in part in the phenomenology of innocence, which leads innocent
people to make bad decisions in their own behalf. This mental
state leads those who stand falsely accused to believe that truth
and justice will prevail. To be sure, innocent suspects, like their
guilty counterparts, are motivated in part by strategic self-
presentation concerns. Reflecting a fundamental belief in a just
world and in the transparency of their own blameless status,
however, those who stand falsely accused also have faith that
their innocence will become self-evident to others. As a result,
they cooperate with police, often not realizing that they are
suspects, not witnesses; they waive their rights to silence,
counsel, and a line-up; they agree to take lie-detector tests; they
vehemently protest their innocence, unwittingly triggering
aggressive interrogation behaviour; and they succumb to
pressures to confess when isolated, trapped by false evidence,
and offered hope via minimization and the leniency it implies. Yet
without independent exculpatory evidence, their innocence is not easily detected by others.
5 problems
1) In pre-interrogation interviews, investigators commit false-positive errors, presuming
innocent suspects guilty
2) Naively believing in the transparency of their innocence, innocent suspects waive their rights
to silence and to counsel
3) Despite or because of their denials, innocent suspects elicit highly confrontational interviews
which make them appear anxious and defensive and exacerbates erroneous judgements of
guilt
4) Certain commonly used techniques lead suspects to confes s to crimes they did not commit
5) Police and others cannot distinguish between uncorroborated true and false confessions.
Miranda waiver
Innocents who are judged as being deceptive, the questioning transitions into a highly
confrontational interrogation characterized by the use of social influence tactics. One procedural
safeguard designed to protect the accused form this process is the Miranda Waiver: police must
inform all suspect in custody of their Constitutional rights to silence and counsel – and suspects must
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive these rights. This requirement aimed to strike a
balance against the inherently threatening power of the police in relation to the disadvantaged
position of the suspect, thus reducing coercion of confessions
In summary, research suggests that adults with mental disabilities, as well as adolescents, are
particularly at risk when it comes to understanding the meaning of Miranda warnings. In addition,
they often lack the capacity to weigh the consequences of rights waiver, and are more susceptible to
waiving their rights as a matter of mere compliance with authority.
Summary problem 1: No one confesses to something they did not do
1. Types of false confessions
- 3 types; explain similarities & differences
False confession = when an innocent person makes a false admission of guilt and subsequently
produces postadmission narrative, which includes details about how or why the crime was
committed. / A false confession is an admission to a criminal act— usually accompanied by a
narrative of how and why the crime occurred—that the confessor did not commit.
1) Voluntary false confessions: self-incriminating statements offered without external pressure
2) Coerced-compliant false confessions: self-incriminating statements offered to escape from
aversive interrogation, avoid an explicit or implicit threat, or gain a promised or implied
reward.
3) Coerced-internalized false confessions: self-incriminating statements that are actually
believed by the innocent suspect by means of highly suggestive procedures, tiredness or
confusion.
Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, Redlich (2009) Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and
Recommendations
Confessions may be deemed false when:
1) It is later discovered that no crime was committed
2) Additional evidence shows it was physically impossible for the confessor to have committed
the crime
3) The real perpetrator, having no connection with the defendant is linked to the crime
4) Scientific evidence affirmatively establishes the confessor’s innocence (DNA)
2. Which factors facilitate false confessions?
- Dispositional (Kassin) and situational (Gudjonsson)
- List all of them (+examples)
- Explain how they can lead to a false confession
- What do we know about the Reid Technique
Psychological vulnerability (Gudjonsson)
- Mental disorders (ADHD, depression, psychosis)
Troubles with perception, emotion, cognition, self-control and reality monitoring
Fail to provide detailed and coherent statements
- Intellectual disabilities
Difficulty in understanding legal rights and interview questions
Problems with memory capacity & more sensitive to suggestion & prone to confabulation
- Abnormal mental states
Problems in functioning in stressful situation due to extreme distress (e.g. alcohol,
substances, medical symptoms, detention circumstances)
- Personality characteristics - related to unreliable and inaccurate statements
Suggestibility: personal acceptance of questions or information
Compliance: complying with requests and instructions for immediate instrumental gain
These vulnerabilities are best viewed as risk factors. Psychologically vulnerable suspects are at
increased risk of providing untruthful statements and/or false confessions, particularly in conjunction
with inappropriate interrogation techniques.
,PSY4018
Gudjonsson (2002) – Unreliable confessions and miscarriages of justice in Britain
Psychological vulnerability; borderline, memory distrust syndrome, poor self-esteem, suggestibility,
compliance, anxiety; use GSS or GCS is sufficient for determining a mental condition that has a
bearing upon determining the safety of a conviction.
Police impropriety or other professional malpractice (coercion, abuse, suppression of evidence,
alteration of interview records, suppression of exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence etc.)
The general thrust of the legal criteria developed over the past 10 years has broadened the
admissibility of expert testimony to include abnormally marked personality traits (e.g. extreme
suggestibility, compliance, anxiety proneness, poor self-esteem, impulsivity). Of course, these must
be of the type to render a confession potentially unreliable (i.e their relevance to the disputed
confession must be demonstrated). Admissibility of expert testimony is no longer restricted to
conditions of mental or psychiatric disorder, such as mental illness, learning disability, or personality
disorder.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Young, S. (2006). An overlooked vulnerability in a defendant: Attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder and a miscarriage of justice
ADHD
- Poor attentional control
Impaired sustained attention over a prolonged period of time during trial
- High levels of impulsivity
Poor behavioural control
Impairment in response inhibition
(Poor intellectual functioning) attentional problems and distractibility are likely to be exacerbated
when performing under stress (in a witness box).
In police interrogation setting:
- Defendant used right to silence; failure to answer the questions
Implications to effectively participate in trial
- Problems with sustained attention and poor behavioural control (e.g. giving impulsive and ill-
considered answers, which might be misconstrued by the jury)
In order to be fit to stand trial the defendant must, on the balance of probabilities, be able to do all
of the following six things:
1) Understand the charges
2) Decide whether to plead guilty or not
3) Exercise his or her right to challenge jurors
4) Instruct solicitors and counsel
5) Follow the court proceedings
6) Give evidence in one’s defence if the person wants to.
With regard to giving evidence, this means that the defendant must be able to:
a) Understand the questions he is aske in the witness box
b) To apply his mind to answering them
c) To convey intelligibly to the jury the answers which he wishes to gives
ADHD affects IQ scores
- Attentional problems and high impulsivity are likely to impair the person’s genuine performance
as points are lost through lack of focus and impulsive errors
- ADHD is associated with academic failure and school truancy, which makes the person unlikely to
fulfil his or her full educational and intellectual potential.
, PSY4018
Recommendations
- A comprehensive ADHD assessment, including neuropsychological testing, is necessary where
there are indications of a history of childhood ADHD.
- Include regular breaks during trial
- Avoid lengthy questions and complex language structures
- Ensure that important info is put across directly and simply
Kassin (2005) On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?
Paradoxical effect that innocence may put innocents at risk
This paradoxical effect may reside in part in the phenomenology of innocence, which leads innocent
people to make bad decisions in their own behalf. This mental
state leads those who stand falsely accused to believe that truth
and justice will prevail. To be sure, innocent suspects, like their
guilty counterparts, are motivated in part by strategic self-
presentation concerns. Reflecting a fundamental belief in a just
world and in the transparency of their own blameless status,
however, those who stand falsely accused also have faith that
their innocence will become self-evident to others. As a result,
they cooperate with police, often not realizing that they are
suspects, not witnesses; they waive their rights to silence,
counsel, and a line-up; they agree to take lie-detector tests; they
vehemently protest their innocence, unwittingly triggering
aggressive interrogation behaviour; and they succumb to
pressures to confess when isolated, trapped by false evidence,
and offered hope via minimization and the leniency it implies. Yet
without independent exculpatory evidence, their innocence is not easily detected by others.
5 problems
1) In pre-interrogation interviews, investigators commit false-positive errors, presuming
innocent suspects guilty
2) Naively believing in the transparency of their innocence, innocent suspects waive their rights
to silence and to counsel
3) Despite or because of their denials, innocent suspects elicit highly confrontational interviews
which make them appear anxious and defensive and exacerbates erroneous judgements of
guilt
4) Certain commonly used techniques lead suspects to confes s to crimes they did not commit
5) Police and others cannot distinguish between uncorroborated true and false confessions.
Miranda waiver
Innocents who are judged as being deceptive, the questioning transitions into a highly
confrontational interrogation characterized by the use of social influence tactics. One procedural
safeguard designed to protect the accused form this process is the Miranda Waiver: police must
inform all suspect in custody of their Constitutional rights to silence and counsel – and suspects must
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive these rights. This requirement aimed to strike a
balance against the inherently threatening power of the police in relation to the disadvantaged
position of the suspect, thus reducing coercion of confessions
In summary, research suggests that adults with mental disabilities, as well as adolescents, are
particularly at risk when it comes to understanding the meaning of Miranda warnings. In addition,
they often lack the capacity to weigh the consequences of rights waiver, and are more susceptible to
waiving their rights as a matter of mere compliance with authority.
