False Confessions and Coercive Interrogation Techniques

Introduction

A review of the literature unequivocally reveals that false confessions are oftentimes deliberately sought after by overzealous criminal justice interrogators who are far more preoccupied with obtaining a confession — and an ensuing conviction — than they are with ascertaining the truth about a particular crime.

Organization of the Paper

This paper is organized around the argument that false confessions are deliberately extracted by far too many interrogators for the purposes of securing a conviction, regardless of whether doing so is truthful. The author explores this position from a variety of viewpoints in support of the thesis. A counterpoint is then presented, revealing that there are certain circumstances in which law enforcement has taken active measures to determine the truth without presupposing guilt or anticipating a particular jury verdict. Finally, the paper deconstructs those specific circumstances before concluding that they are largely inapplicable to the vast majority of interrogations relevant to the court cases examined here.

Literature Review: False Confessions and Interrogation Tactics

False confessions do not occur infrequently within the criminal justice system. There are a variety of reasons explaining this reality, ranging widely in scope and focus. On the one hand, many interrogators readily assume suspects are guilty or, perhaps even worse, simply want to convict them in order to advance their own careers. In other instances, the criminal justice system seeks to punish defendants who have opted not to accept a plea bargain, as a way of dissuading people from exercising their right to a jury trial. Despite such speculation, this much is clear regarding the prevalence of false confessions: they often occur as the result of deliberate manipulation on the part of the interrogator. Specifically, a review of the literature indicates that too many interrogators are single-mindedly focused on extracting confessions in order to gain convictions, rather than doing the more difficult work of uncovering the truth about an alleged crime.

One of the more cogent pieces of literature demonstrating this fact is "Inside Interrogation: The Lie, the Bluff, and False Confessions" by Perillo and Kassin. This research study offers empirical evidence that certain techniques utilized by investigators in interrogation scenarios have the effect of producing confessions from innocent people. The most striking facet of the article appears in its introduction, which notes that false confessions occur in as many as 25% of DNA exoneration cases in America (Perillo and Kassin, 2010, p. 327). Another highly significant contribution of this research is its explanation of a coercive method used to procure false confessions: the bluff tactic. This ploy involves interrogators introducing false evidence that does not directly implicate the suspect, yet still plays a considerable role in producing false confessions. This theoretical premise is substantiated with empirical evidence drawn from a series of quantifiable experiments based on the "Kassin and Keichel computer crash paradigm" (Perillo and Kassin, 2010, p. 327). A key strength of this approach is that the original research presents empirically validated evidence of the efficacy of the bluff tactic — alongside other coercive means — in causing innocent individuals to falsely confess.

However, drawbacks of this research include the fact that the data does not reflect actual criminal justice settings or any specific type of crime. There are therefore inherent limits to its applicability to the criminal justice system, despite its reliance on interrogation techniques widely deployed within that system. Nevertheless, some of the more salient aspects of this study unambiguously pertain to the nature of interrogation techniques used to elicit false confessions. For instance, it is noted that eliciting coerced or distressed confessions is one of the primary outcomes of the Reid technique, which is widely utilized within American police departments (Perillo and Kassin, 2010, p. 327). The central utility of this article, therefore, lies in its reenactment of specific tactics associated with the Reid technique and its empirical validation of the false confessions those tactics tend to produce.

What is noteworthy about the prevalence of false confessions within the American criminal justice system, however, is that it is not representative of police practice worldwide. In fact, there are certain parts of the world where the Reid technique is not only avoided but actively replaced with a contrasting methodology. This phenomenon is detailed at length in "Suspect Interviews and False Confessions" by Gudjonsson and Pearse. This article centers on an extended comparison between the Reid technique and the PEACE model — an acronym for Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account and Clarification, Closure and Evaluation (Gudjonsson and Pearse, 2011, p. 34). The latter provides significant evidence that not all interrogators are focused on predetermined ideas about a suspect's guilt, and that some make earnest efforts to identify the truth regarding a particular crime.

What this article reveals is that the majority of these truth-seeking criminal justice professionals are employed outside U.S. borders, where the Reid technique is largely avoided. Furthermore, the article notes that in countries such as New Zealand and Norway, investigators are guided by principles that are the opposite of those underlying the Reid technique. Investigators in these jurisdictions are prohibited by law from using deception or misleading measures to obtain confessions. This mandate dramatically reduces the number of false confessions in these countries and in other parts of the United Kingdom where the PEACE model is deployed (Gudjonsson and Pearse, 2011, p. 34). This article therefore functions as a counterpoint to the notion that false confessions are universally desired by investigators who have presupposed a suspect's guilt.

However, the central thesis of this paper remains valid because it argues that false confessions are not uniformly sought after everywhere, but rather frequently elicited as a result of the specific methods used by investigators in the United States. The domestic applicability of this thesis is well supported and readily corroborated by an article by Leo and Liu entitled "What Do Jurors Know About Police Interrogation Techniques and False Confessions?" A survey instrument is used within this study to demonstrate that most jurors are largely unaware of the rate at which coercive techniques are used by law enforcement officials to obtain false confessions. The study provides "empirical support" (Leo and Liu, 2009, p. 381) for the value of expert witnesses in educating jurors about the occurrence of this phenomenon, which reinforces the conclusion that it occurs regularly in American trials.