The prevalence of false confessions

False confessions are an unfortunate part of the criminal justice system. False confessions are often extracted in order to gain a quick conviction without careful consideration for the facts of the case. This can lead to major problems for the defendant and the court system as defendants try to convince juries of unethically extracted confessions. While many in the criminal justice system believe, a false confession is a rare occurrence, research suggests it is a far more pervasive problem than imagined.

If one were to look at false confessions via the lens of cognitive dissonance, one can see that certain perceptions may lead one to attempt to maintain a belief regardless of potential evidence going against such a perspective. That can often lead to actions committed to 'catch the culprit' without considering the entire picture from evidence and testimony.

The recommendation then consists of raising awareness of false confessions by demonstrating the kinds of reasons behind false confessions, the rate of occurrence of false confessions, and the aftermath after extracting false confessions through examination of various articles. This is to show that false confessions do exist and occur more often than believed. The first article is "An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions" and discusses the actions that occur after a false confession has been acquired.

The researchers offer an examination of modern interrogation techniques and the effect it causes of inducing false confessions. These false confessions represent the research question's main focus and the hypothesis is then to determine the overall common knowledge of jury-eligible citizens concerning false confessions.

While the study did not have any participants as it was a review, it did implicate that jury-eligible citizens have very, little knowledge on false confessions and that expert testimony may be needed to keep jury members from dismissing potential false confessions due to preconceived notions. Since there was no participant group to gain primary information from, this presents as a main limitation. However, when discussing opposing sides, it can be noted that many defendants may lie in order to avoid a conviction.

Regardless of a jury member's beliefs, a confession dictates the defendant agreed to reveal his or her implication in the crime. Compared to the other studies that were more recent, the information presented here only paints one part of a picture, however, still provides a reasonable introduction to the issue of false confessions, making it relevant to the recommendation by raising awareness of the topic.

Because it does not contain primary information, nor uses detailed cases, nor provides enough background information on false confessions, it can be discounted from recommendation. The article is also almost 10 years old and therefore has a gap in information in relation to potentially new interrogation techniques that may reduce the likelihood of false confessions. Another article narrowing the funnel of literature review is "The substance of false confessions".

The article looks further into the content of investigations and aims to shed light on how false confessions occur, creating a potentially more detailed examination of the occurrence and why it may be more pervasive than believed. This leads to the research question of: How could an innocent confess to a crime? The researcher believes the psychological techniques implant detailed information of the crime to make it easier to gain a believable confession.

Thus, this article highlights confession contamination and provides a more thorough explanation of why false confessions occur through offering an understanding behind the actions in a false confession. The article was not a study and was a review and so therefore, there were no participants. The findings suggest confession contamination exists and to prevent them from happening, police must be videotaped when interrogating the suspect and so forth.

This is a highly relevant article because it serves as a basis for better understanding the mechanisms behind false confessions and serves as a means of identifying implications of combating confession contamination to eliminate occurrence of false confessions. It could be discounted from the recommendation based on its publication date and lack of statistical information. The statistical information presents a gap information that could help discredit the researcher's hypothesis and findings.

While the last two article discussed false confession awareness and the mechanisms behind false confessions, the third article, "Suspect interviews and false confessions", discusses the exact influential methods of police interviewing practice as well as their own correlation with false confessions. What the researchers' research question centered on is the Reid technique and the PEACE model. These models make up the hypothesis that suggests the confrontational and guilt-presumptive aspects of Reid Technique should be replaced with what the UK uses, the PEACE model.

This is because the Reid technique uses more coercion and manipulation leading to a higher rate of false confessions. The article notes that again, false confessions were thought to be of low occurrence when in reality the degree of false confessions is high due to these techniques. The article is highly relevant as it suggests the specific kind of interrogation method that can lead to false confessions.

It also shows the interrogation method that could potentially lead to a higher number of real confessions and a lower number of false confessions. Until then, the findings suggest because of the high occurrence of false confessions, interviews with suspects should be electronically recorded. The article was also a review and did not have any participants nor enough quantitative data to create a concrete delineation of false confessions and the Reid technique. This can make it unreliable for recommendation.

The next article titled: "False confessions" covers the after effects of false confessions, in stark contrast to the other articles that discuss the prevalence of false confessions. The research question centers on the commonsense belief that people do not confess to crimes. However, the hypothesis suggests it happens more than believed and demonstrates through findings that offer a 20 to 25% false confession rate among those with DNA exonerations.

The article is highly relevant because it offers quantifiable information through real world statistics that show not only the high occurrence of false confessions, but where these false confessions are discovered (through DNA exonerations). The findings point to police choosing innocent people based on erroneous judgments and employ interrogation techniques that coerce and manipulate a confession as detailed in the previous article.

The article may not be used as part of the recommendation because it is almost ten years old, does not have participants, and does not offer a means of addressing the problem. However, it is highly relevant regardless because of the information offered. It also served to narrow even further the idea of false confession and its occurrence. The limitations exist because of the review nature of the article.

In the next article, "Why Confessions Trump Innocence", this article ties in what the previous article discussed which was that irrespective of evidence of a false confession, jury members will still convict the innocent defendant. The article's research question is the persuasive power of confessions and the ability of it to convince a jury to convict a suspect.

The hypothesis centers on that the reason behind juries accepting a false confession is in its ability to convey a detailed narrative and concise crime facts that make the suspect appear guilty. This ties in again with the other articles in that it shows that the elements of a false confession can lead to a guilty verdict. While the article helps reinforce and further narrow the scope of the false confession by presenting why people may believe false confessions, it does not have any participants nor real statistical information.

Due to its lack of concrete facts, it may not be used for a recommendation as it creates limitations on believability. However, it is a relevant article as it provides reasons why jurors may believe a false confession and have done so to an alarming rate of 20-25% of convictions pertaining to DNA exonerations. The sixth article, "What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions", further narrows the scope of juror knowledge on false confessions by focusing on interrogation techniques and juror perceptions.

Much like the last three articles, this one aims to show what jurors may think that would lead to ignoring evidence for a potential false confession and what interrogation techniques lead to false confessions. The hypothesis is that guilty confessions are collected through pressure and persuasion and that if a juror is exposed to such a technique, they may be able to understand how coercive these tactics are. The findings show jurors can see the possibility of false confessions being gathered through these techniques as they are psychologically coercive.

However, they still did not believe they could lead to false confessions. Because the study used participants (jurors) it offered empirical support for the need for expert witnesses to sway the minds of jurors when it comes to false confessions. It did have limitations however, in that it did not provide enough statistical information. Making this an unfavorable recommendation as it did not include specific enough information for a more enriched examination of the subject.

The last article titled: "Modeling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions" is a last attempt to thoroughly explore why interrogators may coerce innocent suspects to confess under the presumption of guilt which is the final narrowing of the literature as it tries to explain the why.