False Confessions
Why Would Someone Falsely Confess to a Crime?
In the early hours of April 20, 1989, a female jogger was beaten unconscious, raped, and left for dead in New York City’s Central Park. Her skull was fractured, her eye socket crushed, and she lost three quarters of her blood. Although she survived, she had no memory for the events.[1] Within 48 hours, police had taken the confessions of five teen-aged boys and quickly announced to the press that the young men had been part of a gang of teenagers who were out "wilding," assaulting joggers and bicyclists in Central Park that evening.[2] Each boy gave vivid and detailed confessions about the crime, four of which were videotaped and presented at trial:
“The tapes were compelling, as every one of the defendants described in vivid—though often erroneous—detail how the jogger was attacked, when, where, and by whom, and the role that he played. One boy stood up and reenacted the way he allegedly pulled off the jogger’s running pants. A second said he felt pressured by peers to take part in his ‘first rape,’ expressing remorse and promising that it would not happen again. Together, the taped confessions persuaded police, prosecutors, two trial juries, a city, and a nation….”
Thirteen years later, after encountering one of the wrongfully convicted men in prison, Matias Reyes, a convicted rapist and murderer, confessed that he was the Central Park jogger rapist and that he had acted alone. Reyes had accurate information about the case and the crime scene that corroborated his admission, and his DNA matched the DNA samples originally recovered from the victim--DNA that had conclusively excluded the boys as donors.[4] The original convictions were overturned shortly thereafter, but the damage was done. Each of the original defendants had already served substantial prison terms, between seven and thirteen years each, for a crime they did not commit.[5]
***
To the average person, the idea of falsely confessing to a heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, is inconceivable. It is hard to imagine any set of circumstances that could lead us to admit to something we did not do and expose ourselves to criminal penalties. And yet, we know that false confessions occur, probably more often than we realize. The Central Park Jogger case is a rather startling example of this, but it is not unique. There are numerous famous cases involving false confessions,[6] and countless others that never get publicized in which false confessions either lead to wrongful convictions or are ultimately discounted, resulting in dismissed charges. Statistics show that false confessions contributed to convictions in 28% of the first 350 DNA exonerations in the U.S.[7]
But why and how does this occur? What could possibly convince someone to falsely implicate themselves, and sometimes others, in a crime they didn’t commit? There are different reasons why people falsely confess, resulting in 3 basic types or categories of false confessions:
Voluntary False Confessions: an individual claims responsibility for a crime they did not commit without prompting from the police. This can often be seen in high profile cases (e.g., dozens of people falsely confessed to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey).[8] The impetus is usually a need for attention/notoriety, the desire to protect someone, the perception of tangible gain, feelings of guilt and a desire for self-punishment, and/or mental illness, including a delusional belief in one’s guilt, etc.
Compliant False Confessions: an individual is induced to falsely confess, typically to escape further interrogation. The suspect knows he or she did not commit the crime, but believes the short-term benefits of confessing outweigh the long-term costs. This was the type of false confession illustrated by the Central Park Jogger case.
Suspect begins to believe that there is compelling evidence against him or her and that the best option for avoiding severe punishment is to accept the (exculpatory or mitigatingcfc) scenario suggested by interrogators
Suspect thinks if they agree to the scenario offered by interrogators they will be released and can “straighten everything out later”[9]
Internalized False Confessions: an individual not only confesses but comes to believe they actually committed the crime. In most cases, the confessor does not develop false memories but instead decides that he or she may have committed the crime despite having no memory of it (e.g., that he blacked out during the crime or repressed the memory of it). In some rare cases, however, the person may actually form false memories for the event.[10]
Of these three types of false confessions, the most prevalent by far is the compliant false confession.[11] What the research suggests is this: if we disregard instances when people falsely confess in order to gain notoriety or because they are mentally ill, we are left with a disturbing number of suspects who falsely confess to crimes due to the pressures of the interrogation process itself. We know that modern interrogation techniques can be highly coercive and quite effective, but what separates those who are generally able to withstand the pressures of interrogation from those who are not?
The research tells us that two dispositional traits are key: compliance and suggestibility.[12] These traits can result from different causes, but generally speaking the following individuals are more vulnerable to false confessions:[13]
Individuals with personalities that make them prone to compliance in social situations are especially susceptible because of their eagerness to please others and avoid confrontation
Those who are highly suggestible and therefore prone to having their memories altered by misleading questions and negative feedback
Individuals who are highly anxious, fearful, depressed, delusional or otherwise psychologically disordered
Mentally disabled individuals
Youth. Younger individuals are developmentally at a disadvantage, and tend to demonstrate immature judgment in decision-making. They are more impulsive, more focused on immediate gratification, and have a diminished ability to perceive future risk. Moreover, a large number of youth involved in the justice system have psychological disorders, making them inherently more vulnerable. Finally, and greatly compounding the problem, younger individuals are highly likely to waive their Miranda rights and talk to police (more than 90%).[14]
If you need help visualizing someone who embodies these type of characteristics, look no further than 16-year-old Brendan Dassey from Netflix documentary Making a Murderer. Dassey is a veritable prototype of the kind of suspect most vulnerable to false confessions--young, low IQ, poor self-esteem, highly suggestible, with possible psychological disorders. Even if you are someone who entertains doubts about his innocence, there is simply no avoiding the fact that his psychological vulnerabilities rendered him incapable of withstanding the highly coercive interrogation techniques used against him, leading to a confession that is utterly untrustworthy. And yet, it was sufficient to put him behind bars for life.
Another factor that can compound these types of vulnerabilities is rooted in the psychology of how people respond to the notion of police interrogation. Research shows that people who are truly innocent are much more likely to waive their rights and talk to police (in one study the margin was 81% to 36%).[15] Innocent people reason that they will “seem” guilty if they don’t agree to talk, and that they have “nothing to hide.” Psychologists believe this mindset is due in part to the “illusion of transparency” which is a tendency for people to overestimate the extent to which their true thoughts, emotions and other inner states can be seen by others.[16] Ultimately, it appears that people have a naive faith in the power of their own innocence to protect them.[17]
PRACTICAL TIPS
No matter which side you’re on, if you are trying a case in which a confession is the main evidence, you need to become familiar with the research cited above and be prepared either to use it to your advantage, or defend against its use. It is important to know the conditions that make false confessions more likely. And if you are representing a client who is particularly vulnerable for the reasons stated above (or others), you will need to formulate a defense that effectively convinces the jury of that fact as well as the data showing that false confessions are much more prevalent than most believe.
In my next post (False Confessions: Part 2) I will discuss modern day interrogation techniques and why they are so effective from a psychological standpoint; in Part 3 I will discuss the best strategy for getting expert testimony admitted on the issue of false confessions and other tips for trying these cases. Stay tuned!
[1] Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions. Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
[2] About the Central Park Five. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2017, from http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/centralparkfive/about-central-park-five/
[3] Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions. Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
[4] Prosecutors had argued that just because police did not capture all the perpetrators involved in the rape did not mean they did not get some of them (Kassin, 2005); Kassin, S. M. (2015). The social psychology of false confessions. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 25-51. doi:10.1111/sipr.12009
[5] Sanchez, R. (2014, September 07). Central Park jogger case brings $41 million settlement. Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/05/justice/new-york-central-park-five/index.html
[6] Kassin, S. M. (2017). False confessions: How can psychology so basic be so counterintuitive? American Psychologist, 72(9), 951–964. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/amp0000195
[7] Kassin, S. M. (2017). False confessions: How can psychology so basic be so counterintuitive? American Psychologist, 72(9), 951–964. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/amp0000195Kassin (2017); Innocence Project.org
[8] Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth.
[9] Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth.
[10] Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth.
[11] Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth.
[12] Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x
[13] Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x
[14] Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x
[15] Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions. Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
[16] Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions. Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
[17] Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions. Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215