Interrogations● Confessions: ○ Goal of questioning suspects is to elicit confessions■ 39-48% of suspects make full confessions■ 13-16% of suspects make damaging statements or partial admissions■ 68% of police-interrogate suspects make self-incriminating statements○ Most powerful form of evidence● The Power of Confessions: ○ More guilty pleas, avoid investigation, trials etc.○ Almost guaranteed conviction■ 73% for self-confession vs 59% for eyewitness■ Most incriminating evidence (multiple studies)■ Not discounted even if potentially false● Confession Study With Mock Jurors: ○ Asked college students to pretend that they were on a jury■ Asked to read the transcripts of the interrogation○ There are three different conditions:■ One with no confession■ One with a low pressure confession■ One from a high pressure confession○ A coerced confession is still very persuasive■ They recognized coercion, said they’d disregard it● Courtroom Dynamics (Checks and Balances): ○ Defense can argue that confession was coerced■ Judges decide whether confession is inadmissible● This is a rare occurrence○ In some states jurors judge admissibility themselves, which are subject to bias■ Don’t think innocent people confess■ Tolerant of coercive tactics, discount the effects of high pressure interrogation● Other Effects: ○ The power to spoil or strengthen other evidence■ Eye-Witnesses: ● Confessions can cause them to change the person they identify■ Forensic Analysts: ● Coerced confessions can cause them to include suspect, despite uncertain DNA evidence○ Confessions may bolster credibility of otherwise unpersuasive evidence and corrupt other forms of evidence● Evolution of Interrogation: ○ Prior to 1930: ■ Use of direct physical violence○ 1931: ■ Report on Lawlessness and Law Enforcement led to less obvious physical abuse● Covert abuse: leaving no marks, deprivation, isolation, intimidation○ Since 1961: ■ Legal decisions: confessions by certain types of coercion are inadmissible● Physical force, deprivation, prolonged isolation, threats of violencepushed police from covert physical to more psychological coercionforms● Miranda Rights: ○ Right to remain silent■ Anything you say can and will be used again you in court of law○ To have attorney present during questioning○ To have appointed attorney when financial need exists■ If you can’t afford an attorney○ To acknowledge understanding of rights■ Do you understand these rights?● Miranda Rights and Confessions: ○ 80% of suspects waive rights and are subject to interrogation (choose to talk)■ Police delivery “tricks”: give in a perfunctory, rushed, ritualistic manner■ Suspect may be upset, lack clear thinking, or unable to understand that rights are being waved■ Suspect has “nothing to hide”● Study on Who Waives Miranda Rights: ○ Participants were guilty or innocent of a mock crime (stealing $100)○ Confronted by a neutral, sympathetic, or hostile detective○ Asked if they would waive their rights and talk■ 36% of guilty still waived rights■ 81% of innocent waived rights○ What counts as a voluntary confession?○ Who decides whether it’s valid?● Evaluating Confessions: ○ 1961 ruling: Totality of circumstances■ Judges must look at all circumstances surrounding interrogation■ Still lots of permissive rulings:● Hold a suspect for 16 days without visitors or phone calls● Phony lineups where fictional eyewitnesses identify suspect● Report that victim miraculously survived and reported suspect● Police informer posing as prison cellmate who promises protection○ Problems: ■ Psychological coercion is hard to define■ Who gets to decide? Who is believed?■ Most confessions are admitted to trial● Modern Interrogation: ○ Modern interrogation is primarily psychological■ Good cop/bad cop approach○ Methodological: police receive substantial training on interrogation manuals andtechniques■ Detailed advice on every aspect of interrogation processes● Questions, non-verbal behavior, type of chairs, lighting, etc.● Social Psychology: ○ Interrogation relies heavily on social biases○ Reciprocity: ■ If you want someone to like you, ask them for a favor■ Cognitive Dissonance: ● When a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, orvalues, or participates in an action that goes against on of them● People will do all in their power to change actions and ideas that are psychologically inconsistent with each other, until they become consistent○ Authority: ■ You are more likely to cooperate with someone and like them if they haveauthority over you○ Scarcity: ■ We are motivated to take advantage of a reward if it’s scarce● You have to act right now○ Social Proof: ■ Numbers (multiple people) are more persuasive than an individual● Similar to conformity● General Approach: ○ 4 psychologically powerful strategies:■ Loss of Control: ● Increase vulnerability, anxiety, keep off-balance■ Social Isolation: ● Deprive social support and contradictory information■ Certainty of Guilt: ● Challenge, interrupt, dismiss, undermine their statements● Evidence ploys: false portrayal of evidence that doesn’t exist■ Minimization of Culpability: ● Face-saving justifications, shift blame● Themes: a story that the suspect can latch onto to either excuse or justify their part in the crime○ Giving them a narrative to minimize culpability● The Reid Technique: ○ Involves 9-step technique that represents the general flow of many interrogations■ Confrontation■ Theme Development■ Deflection (stopping denials)■ Overcoming Objections■ Regaining Attention (expressing empathy)■ Reframing (alternative themes)■ Force the Alternative■ Repetition (eliciting full confession)■ Documentation○ Interrogations are very effective, but can sometimes be too effective● False Confessions: ○ Prompted by lying, intimidation, deception, fatigue, abuse■ Hard to identify○ Study: take 125 proven false confessions overturned by DNA and provided to mock jurors for judgment■ 81% conviction rate■ Confessions are difficult to discount/ignore● Even if lacking corroborative evidence● Even if coerced● Even if false● Fundamental Attribution Error: ○ Bias to overemphasize personal characteristics and ignore
View Full Document