Psychological Variables of False Confessions

False confessions are not a new concept in America, and there have been hundreds of examples of false confessions. In Massachusetts in 1692 many colonists confessed to being witches in Salem. The trials resulted in at least nineteen executions before they were eventually stopped (Agar, 1999). Further along in American history, the Lindbergh kidnapping and murder became a public media skeptical in 1932. During that time, over 200 innocent people came forward and confessed to the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s child (Agar, 1999). More currently with the advancement of DNA techniques, confessed sentenced criminals are being released from prison for crimes they never committed. Why would anyone ever confess to a crime, especially a serious one, when they never committed the crime? Current criminal justice professionals, psychologists, and sociologists argue that the suspect’s mental and psychological condition may affect many false confessions. Suspect psychological characteristics, type of crime, and contextual characteristics of the interrogations can affect a suspect’s tendency to confess (Gudjonsson, 2003).

Gudjonsson (2003) discussed different psychological variables that effect confessions. These include current mental status, intellectual functioning, reading ability, interrogative suggestibility, state and trait anxiety, and the understanding of rights by questioned suspects (Gudjonsson, 2003). For these variables to be properly examined, investigators conducting a criminal interview must determine if the suspect is fit to be interviewed. Investigators must assess the cognition and intellect of the suspect to be best of their abilities. The investigators tasked with interviewing a suspect should be aware of any psychiatric disorder that will usually lead to unfitness for an interview and psychiatric disorders that might indicate a significant risk of unreliability (Rix, 1997).

 Psychiatric disorders that will usually lead to unfitness for interviews would be suspects that are experiencing acute organic reactions (including alcohol or drug withdrawals), mania, severe dementia, and severe mental handicap (Rix, 1997). Psychiatric disorders that may indicate a significant risk of unreliability would be milder forms of dementia, hypomania, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, mild or moderate mental handicap, and mild substance withdrawal states (Rix, 1997). While certain psychological disorders automatically should rule a suspect unfit for an interview; the theories of false confessions are endless and are currently being studied by criminal justice professionals.

The mental status of a suspect should always be considered when determining if and how a suspect should be interviewed. Individuals with diagnosed mental handicaps comprise of one to two percent of the general population, but in prison they comprise of approximately 4.2 percent (O’Connell, Garmoe, & Goldstein, 2005). Current studies have determined that individuals with diagnosed mental handicaps are often more easily caught by police and are more likely to be tricked by police during interview into confessing or taking the blame for criminal offenses (O’Connell, Garmoe, & Goldstein, 2005). Suspects who suffer from mental handicaps, even in mild cases, should at all costs understand their rights and understand what is happening to them. For example, if a suspect suffers from Down syndrome investigators should make sure that the suspect has proper representation and is aware of what is transpiring. A person with Down syndrome, if being interviewed, may not understand what certain questions are or what they are being accused of. Personally, I would never ask a suspect who has Down syndrome any questions until they have proper legal representation to represent them. I would also contact my district attorney to see if there is any way to conduct an intellectual assessment of the suspect prior to taking any voluntary statements. A person who lacks intellectual reasoning or articulation skills should never be held to statements that they do not understand or comprehend.

Another mental status that is currently being studied are individuals with ADHD. A study by Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Bragason, Newton, and Elinarsson (2008) studied 90 Icelandic prisoners who were currently serving prison sentences and diagnosed with ADHD. The study determined reasons why ADHD prisoners made false confessions for previous crimes that they did not commit. The reasons were: nine (43%) wanted to leave the police station or to avoid custody and six (29%) were protecting someone else (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Bragason, Newton, and Elinarsson 2008). This study concluded that ADHD suspects are particularly vulnerable during police questioning and detention because of their restlessness, poor concentration, and impulsiveness (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Bragason, Newton, and Elinarsson 2008). The findings of this study are not unexpected, as anyone with any experience with ADHD can understand. Besides certain mental status conditions another issue in confession is the understanding of legal rights during questioning and detention.

Understanding legal rights is another major psychological variable in confessions. It is estimated that 695,000 mentally disordered offenders are arrested and Mirandized annually in the Unites States (Rogers, Harrison, Hazelwood, & Sewell, 2007). Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established procedural safeguards to protect suspects in interviews to avoid making self-incriminating statements and to have an attorney present during questioning. The suspect must make a confession “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). A study conducted by O’Connell, Garmoe, and Goldstein (2005) determined that individuals with lower IQ scores had a higher tendency to be tricked by leading questions. The same study determined that individuals with mild mental retardation demonstrated difficultly understanding Miranda rights. If a suspect cannot understand their legal rights, then their rights can be violated—making any voluntary confession not admissible.  

Representation should always be present and if applicable a psychologist who specialized in the disorder should also be present to explain the suspect’s rights. In situations where the suspect suffers from ADHD, investigators should be trained in how to interview individuals with the condition and every effort should be made to make the interview short and brief. Personal statements from individuals affected by these conditions should not be discredited, since they may be telling the truth in a voluntary confession.

References

Agar, J. (1999). “The Admissibility of False Confession Expert Testimony”. The Army Lawyer; Aug. pp. 26-43.

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

Gudjonsson, G., Sigurdsson, J., Bragason, O., Newton, A., & Elinarsson, E. (2008).

“Interrogative suggestibility, compliance and false confessions among prisoners and their relationship with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms”. Psychological Medicine (2008), 38, pp. 1037-1044.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

O’Connell, M., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. (2005). “Miranda Comprehension in Adults with Mental Retardation and the Effects of Feedback Style on Suggestibility”. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3, June 2005.

Rix, K. (1997). “Fit to be interviewed by the police?”. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, vol. 3, pp. 33-40.

Rogers, R., Harrison, K., Hazelwood, L., & Sewell, K. (2007). “Knowing and Intelligent: A Study of Miranda Warnings in Mentally Disordered Defendants”. Law of Human Behavior, Vol. 31: pp. 401-418.

Analysis of Reid & McDonald Interview Techniques in American Law Enforcement

Current television shows portray a police interview as a session where the suspect, when confronted with evidence, breaks down and confesses to a crime in a matter of minutes. In reality, this is a product of pure fiction. In most criminal cases, very rarely does the investigator have all the incriminating evidence of a suspect’s guilt prior to an interview. Due to the lack of certain evidence, an interview may be conducted in an effort to obtain evidence that would be needed to affect an arrest and/or a conviction. The proper way to conduct an interview has been examined; and theories and techniques have been formed on which is the most effective way to get a guilt party to confess. Many investigators in law enforcement have their own style and personal techniques while conducting an interview. Most investigators use several different techniques during interviews. While all of the major techniques have pros and cons, I believe the Reid technique is more applicable to the American criminal justice system. Unlike the Reid technique, the interview tactic that I seriously disagree with would be the McDonald tactic.

The Reid technique, when used properly, satisfies two major criteria in interviews. For any technique to be effective enough it must persuade a guilty suspect to tell the truth but not so powerful that it would cause an innocent person to confess (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). The Reid technique attempts to reduce the perceived consequences of telling the truth without having the investigator offer a promise of leniency for a confession. Instinctively, criminal suspects’ deception is motivated to avoid the consequences of telling the truth (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). The consequences that a suspect may face could include jail time, separation from family, paying fines, and other real consequences. The suspect may also feel personal consequences like embarrassment and shame (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). Investigators who are educated on the Reid technique are aware of this and can alter their approach during an interview. For example, an investigator should never tell a suspect “you messed up big time, you will get at least 20 years for what you have done”. If a suspect is fearful of jail and a lengthy sentence, why would he tell the investigator anything?  Instinctively, human beings typically only do things to benefit themselves or others. I have found it usefully to try to relate to the suspect and why he would commit a certain crime, just as the Reid technique describes. The Reid technique encourages the reinforcement of the guilty suspect’s own justification for his crime (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). A focus on the suspects' "victim mentality" might encourage the suspect to confess even though there is no logical justification for committing the crime.

The Reid technique is further broken into 9 steps of interview. These include direct positive confrontation, theme development, stopping details, overcoming objections, getting the suspect’s attention; the suspect quiets and listens, alternatives, bringing the suspect into the conversation, and the confession. Step one, direct positive confrontation, would include presenting evidence to the suspect and telling the suspect they are involved in a crime (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). The behavior of the suspect should be studied and this is the beginning stage to any interview. The second step, theme development, would include providing justifications for the suspect to commit a crime (Gudjonsson, 2003). Just as mentioned earlier, this is relating to the suspect and his state of mind during the commission of the suspected crime. The third step involves the suspect quitting denials which could indicate probable guilt, followed by the fourth step of overcoming objections (Gudjonsson, 2003). The fifth step of getting the suspect’s attention is a very important step. This involves physical closeness and the use of verbal techniques to command attention (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). For example, if a suspect is showing signs that they are not listening the investigator may turn and face the suspect closer and attempt to make eye contact. This process involves removing any barriers between the suspect and the investigator, like a table in the interview room. By presenting open nonverbal gestures, the investigator might open up a dialog with the suspect. The sixth step is when the suspect quiets and listens, usually showing signs of surrender (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). Step seven is alternatives followed by step eight of bringing the suspect into the conversation. This step involves encouraging the suspect to freely talk about any aspect of the crime (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). The final step is the confession. At this point the verbal statements of the suspect are usually recorded (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998).
Unlike the Reid technique, the McDonald tactic involves violating suspects’ rights during interviews. McDonald states that the simplest method to break people is to severely limit their food intake or refuse them food (Gudjonsson, 2003). I believe that this technique is illegal and violates the rights of the accused. From my experience, I have learned that a $5 meal and showing acts of kindness go farther than intentionally starving a suspect during an interview. By opening the interview with some humanity, the suspect might open up to you and trust might be established. This earned trust can be used to the investigators advantage, if the investigator is skilled at interviews.

While the Reid technique has survived legal scrutiny for more than 50 years in the United States, it also must adhere to judicial decisions. This involves legal rights that a suspect has and the advisement at the proper times of the Miranda rights. This is why the McDonald tactics should never be practiced. The McDonald tactics involve borderline torture techniques that should never be practiced in the criminal justice system.

While each human is different and their behaviors are different, each investigator should take these considerations into play when conducting an interview. Over time, skilled investigators use several different techniques to obtain a confession. While opponents of the Reid technique argue that it is unfair, it is still a very effective tool for investigators. It should be noted that some guilty suspects will confess within 5 minutes and some will never confess. Every suspect should be interviewed according to what the lead investigators believe is the best personal method. Textbook methods although are descriptive and great, are not always applicable under every circumstances. 

References

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

Jayne, B. & Buckley, J. (2004). The Reid Technique of Interrogation. Retrieved from http://www.reid.com/educational_info/canada.html on 07/07/2010.

Zulawski, D. & Wicklander, D. (1998). Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, 1998.