Increases in False Confessions: The Juvenile Factor

Many professionals in the criminal justice field argue that the rate of false confessions is on an increase compared to previous years. While there has been a notable increase in the frequency of false confessions discussed in the media and the criminal justice field, the actual rate of false confessions in practice is difficult to determine (Leo & Ofshe, 1998). The reason why this is so difficult to determine is due to the amount of evidence needed for exoneration. In the past, evidence such as DNA was not existent. Therefore, it would be difficult to compare cases of suspected false confession in the 1860’s to cases in today’s times. Without the ability to compare exoneration rates, it would be next to impossible to determine the rate of false confessions. The current reasoning behind the assumption that false confessions are on the increase can be connected to the numerous studies of reported exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals. The increase in exonerations can be connected to interrelated trends (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). One major trend would be the growing technology of DNA sophistication and identification technology. DNA is becoming cheaper and more available for criminal justice professionals. Another trend is that DNA evidence has been more newsworthy and the exoneration by DNA has become more popular in society and the media (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). This extra media attention has led law enforcement professionals to become more aware of the dangers of false convictions. Currently, there are forty-one Innocence Projects in thirty-one states (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). The Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that works to overturn wrongful convictions, claims to have aided in the overturning of 215 wrongful convictions; with nearly 25% of these cases have included some type of false confession evidence. Thankfully, DNA testing has been used during post conviction to exonerate the innocent and help investigators catch the guilty party. Other criminal justice studies have produced similar numbers that are comparative to those of the Innocence Project (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000); it appears that juveniles may be a large number of those wrongfully convicted by false confession evidence. In a study of 328 wrongful convictions in the U.S., 44% of juveniles provided a false confession when compared with only 13% of adults in the sample (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). So, what is leading to an assumption of the increase in false confessions? I personally believe that the increase in violent crime among juvenile offenders is leading to an assumed increase in false confessions. This increase in violent crimes by juvenile offenders leads to a higher chance of police questioning, which may lead to a false confession by the confronted juvenile.

In a study conducted by Drizin and Leo (2004), a study was conducted of 125 cases of proven false confessions that occurred between 1971 and 2002. One-third of the cases examined consisted of juvenile offenders under the age of 17 (Drizin & Leo, 2004). Interesting, over 90% of the cases involved major charges such as murder or rape (Drizin & Leo, 2004). Other empirical studies have also concluded that juveniles are more likely to falsely incriminate themselves and confess during an interrogation than older persons and adults. In a study of exonerations conducted by Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil (2005) found that 33 of 340 individuals who were exonerated between 1989 and 2003 were under the age of 18 at the time of the crimes that they were convicted. Fourteen of those thirty-three that were exonerated admitted that they had falsely confessed- 42% compared to 13% of older exonerees (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). Out of the youngest of these juveniles that were exonerated, those aged twelve to fifteen-69% confessed to homicides (and one rape) that they did not commit (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005).

           

Many argue that juveniles are more vulnerable to coercion and suggestion than their adult counterparts. Current studies have determined that younger children are more suggestible than older children in terms of giving in to both leading questions and interrogative pressure (Gudjonsson, 2003). Studies have determined that adolescents are more responsive to negative feedback during an interrogation than adults. In a study conducted by Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs (1991), younger children (7 years of age) yielded more to misleading questions and shifted their answers more after negative feedback than children who were older and adults (Gujonsson, 2003). The same study determined that 7 year olds and 12 years olds both shifted their answers significantly more after negative feedback than did adults in the same study (Gujonsson, 2003). Many theorize why juveniles are more vulnerable than their adult counterparts is because of the social expectations of obedience to authority and the juvenile’s actual perceived social status. With a perceived lower social status, a juvenile may be more likely to speak indirectly with authority figures to avoid provoking conflict (Feld, 2006).

           

The perceived increase in false confessions can be attributed to a number of different reasons in the criminal justice field. But the alarming studies of false confessions among juveniles can not be ignored. Juveniles, who are making up more and more of the criminal offenders in the criminal justice field, have been shown to be more suggestible and more likely to be coerced than their adult counterparts. This increase in questioning can lead to a false confession by a juvenile confronted by an authoritative figure with leading questions. Current investigators should be aware of the suggestibility of juvenile offenders and their desire to please those in an authoritive role asking misleading questions. Investigators should constantly remember that the main goal of justice is to arrest the guilty party and protect the innocent.

           

REFERENCES

        Drizin, S. & Leo, R. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007.

Feld, B. (2006). Police Interrogation of Juveniles: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97, 219-316.

Gross, S., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the Unite States, 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95, 523-560.

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Leo, R. & Ofshe, R. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 429-496.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P. & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual Innocence. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.