Psychology of Confession Evidence

• NCJ Number: 165113
• Journal: American Psychologist Volume: 52 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1997) Pages: 1-13
• Author(s): S M Kassin
• Date Published: 1997
• Length: 13 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Portions of this paper were presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 1995, New York.

Annotation

This paper addresses issues concerning police interrogation procedures, the risk of false confessions, and the impact that confession evidence has on a jury.

Abstract

On the basis of available research, the author concludes that the criminal justice system does not currently afford adequate protection for innocent people coerced into making false confessions; further, there are serious dangers associated with confession evidence. The specific problems with confession evidence are threefold; the police routinely use deception, trickery, and psychologically coercive methods of interrogation; these methods may, at times, manipulate innocent people into confessing to crimes they did not commit; and when coerced, self- incriminating statements are presented in the courtroom, juries do not appropriately assess the evidence in reaching a verdict. In recent years, a small but increasing number of psychologists have testified on behalf of criminal defendants who confessed but then retracted their statements, pleaded not guilty, and went to trial. In some cases, the experts testified in general terms about social influence, suggestibility effects on memory, psychopathology, and other relevant phenomena; in other cases, they offered specific opinions about the truth or falsity of the disputed confession on the basis of interviews with the defendant, demonstrations, and test results. Some experts argue, however, that oral testimony from confession experts at trials is less desirable as a means of intervention than the presentation of research to the courts in written briefs. On a case-by-case basis, relevant findings could then be communicated to the jury in the judge's instructions. The primary problem that must be addressed, however, is the sparse relevant research on confession evidence. Additional research is needed to provide a solid scientific foundation for an expert's perspective on confession evidence. 109 references