to escape the abuse.And experimental evidence suggests that people often downplay the potential long-term consequences of confessing to illegal activities when an admission appears to provide relief from short-term discomfort.When we have an opportunity to end the stress, fatigue, and fear we are feeling in the moment, we find it hard to appreciate the ruinousrepercussions that may result from admitting to something that we did not do.
Police interrogations take full advantage of our cognitive myopia.According to the nine steps of the Reid technique, the investigator is meant to hammer on the suspect’s unquestionable guilt and emphasize the futility of denials in light of the damning evidence, while at the same time offering sympathy and potential justifications that encourage the person to see confessing as more acceptable.The officer might suggest that the crime wasn’t a big deal (“You know, the victim kind of had it coming, if you ask me; I’d probably have done the same thing as you in that situation”) or offer a potential narrative that lessens the moral role of the offender (“You weren’t planning to kill him, I bet, you just needed some money, and it was only when he suddenly started to attack you that the gun went off”).
Empirical evidence suggests that both of these approaches—commonly referred to as minimization and maximization—can contribute to false confessions.And the effects are not small: in one study, when minimization was used with students accused of cheating (“I’m sure you didn’t realize what a big deal it was”), the rate of false confessions tripled.When the interrogator added a subtle suggestion of leniency in exchange for confessing (“Things could probably be settled pretty quickly [with a signed confession]”), the rate increased sevenfold.
Despite these serious concerns, judges have been reluctant to reform interrogation practices.While the Supreme Court has formally prohibited confessions obtained through violence or threats, as well as those gained through direct or implied promises, lower courts have regularly turned a blind eye to many coercive practices.Further, the justices have explicitly sanctioned interrogator tricks, like pretending to possess fingerprint evidence and lying to a suspect about the results of a polygraph test, which encourage innocent people to confess to crimes that they did not commit.
In one of the most tragic cases, seventeen-year-old MartinTankleff awoke one morning to find his mother stabbed to death and his father badly cut and clinging to life.Investigators suspected that Martin was the perpetrator, and so, during questioning, one of them pretended—within earshot of Martin—to talk on the phone with an officer at the hospital where Martin’s dad had been taken.After the fake conversation, he told Martin that his father had come out of his coma and said “Marty” had done it.The father, in fact, never came to and died shortly thereafter, but Martin admitted to the killing and served seventeen years in prison before he was exonerated.
What’s worse is that Martin’s false confession was predictable.His case involved two of the basic elements we know lead to disaster: a suspect particularly susceptible to coercion and a grueling interrogation.A disproportionate number of verified false confessions have come after unusually lengthy interrogations—lasting twelve hours, on average—with suspects who were under eighteen or suffering from mental illness or disability.
The interrogation of Juan Rivera fits the pattern perfectly.At the time of his arrest for Holly Staker’s rape and murder, Juan was nineteen years old, had an IQ of 79 (well below the average of 100), and read at a third-grade level.Among other mental illnesses, he suffered from major depressive disorder and had made several suicide attempts.Despite these warning signs—disclosed to the police early in the process—officials proceeded to engage in a long,
Police interrogations take full advantage of our cognitive myopia.According to the nine steps of the Reid technique, the investigator is meant to hammer on the suspect’s unquestionable guilt and emphasize the futility of denials in light of the damning evidence, while at the same time offering sympathy and potential justifications that encourage the person to see confessing as more acceptable.The officer might suggest that the crime wasn’t a big deal (“You know, the victim kind of had it coming, if you ask me; I’d probably have done the same thing as you in that situation”) or offer a potential narrative that lessens the moral role of the offender (“You weren’t planning to kill him, I bet, you just needed some money, and it was only when he suddenly started to attack you that the gun went off”).
Empirical evidence suggests that both of these approaches—commonly referred to as minimization and maximization—can contribute to false confessions.And the effects are not small: in one study, when minimization was used with students accused of cheating (“I’m sure you didn’t realize what a big deal it was”), the rate of false confessions tripled.When the interrogator added a subtle suggestion of leniency in exchange for confessing (“Things could probably be settled pretty quickly [with a signed confession]”), the rate increased sevenfold.
Despite these serious concerns, judges have been reluctant to reform interrogation practices.While the Supreme Court has formally prohibited confessions obtained through violence or threats, as well as those gained through direct or implied promises, lower courts have regularly turned a blind eye to many coercive practices.Further, the justices have explicitly sanctioned interrogator tricks, like pretending to possess fingerprint evidence and lying to a suspect about the results of a polygraph test, which encourage innocent people to confess to crimes that they did not commit.
In one of the most tragic cases, seventeen-year-old MartinTankleff awoke one morning to find his mother stabbed to death and his father badly cut and clinging to life.Investigators suspected that Martin was the perpetrator, and so, during questioning, one of them pretended—within earshot of Martin—to talk on the phone with an officer at the hospital where Martin’s dad had been taken.After the fake conversation, he told Martin that his father had come out of his coma and said “Marty” had done it.The father, in fact, never came to and died shortly thereafter, but Martin admitted to the killing and served seventeen years in prison before he was exonerated.
What’s worse is that Martin’s false confession was predictable.His case involved two of the basic elements we know lead to disaster: a suspect particularly susceptible to coercion and a grueling interrogation.A disproportionate number of verified false confessions have come after unusually lengthy interrogations—lasting twelve hours, on average—with suspects who were under eighteen or suffering from mental illness or disability.
The interrogation of Juan Rivera fits the pattern perfectly.At the time of his arrest for Holly Staker’s rape and murder, Juan was nineteen years old, had an IQ of 79 (well below the average of 100), and read at a third-grade level.Among other mental illnesses, he suffered from major depressive disorder and had made several suicide attempts.Despite these warning signs—disclosed to the police early in the process—officials proceeded to engage in a long,
Similar Books
