A coerced confession is an involuntary confession. Coerced confessions are elicited by investigating officers’ use of coercive tactics. Coerced confessions are sometimes authentic but are often false. In addition to true, but involuntary confessions, there are two different types of false coerced confessions: coerced-compliant and coerced-internalized. Coerced confessions are an important topic in criminal psychology because any suspect interrogated by police officers could be coerced into making an involuntary confession. False coerced confessions can lead to wrongful convictions, which pose serious problems for the criminal justice system. This article describes the coercive tactics investigative officers may use, the different types of coerced confessions, the role of coerced confessions in the court system, and coerced confessions in psychological research.
Coercive Tactics
Coercive tactics are designed to compel, control, and/or intimidate. Coercive tactics are often used by police officers during interrogations of suspects. It is important to note that some interrogative tactics considered coercive are accepted legally, while other coercive tactics are not.
Illegal Coercive Tactics
In many countries, confessions provided under the promise of leniency or stemming from the use of quid pro quo tactics—that is, explicit offers of benefit in exchange for admissions of guilt—are inadmissible in a court of law. Similarly, in most countries, any statement following the use of physical force or explicit threat of physical force by the police would be inadmissible.
Legal Coercive Tactics
There are a number of coercive interrogation tactics that are permitted by the courts; however, specific coercive tactics considered legally acceptable vary noticeably by jurisdiction. A confession resulting from legally acceptable coercive tactics would generally be considered admissible. This is true even if the resulting confession was false. Throughout North America, and in many other jurisdictions, police officers are allowed to make strong accusations, manipulate individuals, invade personal space, psychologically pressure the suspect to tell the truth, and use lies or other forms of deception. Using false evidence ploys, officers may deceitfully imply to the suspect that they have evidence tying the suspect to the crime. For example, an investigator may falsely tell a suspect that there is forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprint, DNA, or fiber match evidence) that incriminates the suspect or that there are eyewitnesses who have identified the suspect. Trickery and other psychologically manipulative tactics are generally accepted as legal within the court system, as it is assumed that the tactics would not influence innocent suspects to falsely confess. Although research has shown that these tactics may lead to a coerced false confession, they may also lead to a true confession, and it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between the two or to know the rates of coerced false confessions.
Coercive Interrogations
The Reid technique is a form of investigation often used by police officers, which employs coercive tactics. John E. Reid created the Reid technique in the 1990s. This technique is based on three basic themes: isolation, confrontation, and minimization. Isolation includes both physical isolation and psychological isolation of the suspect. Confrontation techniques are based on strong assertions of the suspect’s guilt as well as physical intimidation. Minimization involves psychological and moral justifications for the crime as well as subtle suggestions of leniency.
The Reid technique includes many different strategies that are organized into a general framework of interrogative stages. In the early stages of the interrogation, officers will isolate a suspect for a period of time in an interrogation room. Next, officers will insist to a suspect that there is no doubt about the suspect’s guilt, while confronting the suspect with evidence. Evidence may be real and/or exaggerated or outright false. During this confrontation, interrogating officers may also use other maximization techniques designed to intimidate the suspect. In the later stages of the interrogation, investigators will pressure the suspect to tell the truth in the form of a confession. When encouraging the suspect to confess, interrogators use minimization techniques designed to decrease the suspect’s perceived seriousness of the situation. Officers may suggest to the suspect that just telling the truth, in the form of a confession, will be easier on the suspect (e.g., statements along the lines of “things will go better for you if you just tell the truth and confess”). Police may also tell the suspect that they will make sure the suspect receives psychological or spiritual help. Interrogations can be very lengthy, and investigators can become very aggressive and confrontational with suspects.
Research has linked the Reid interrogation technique to false and coerced confessions. False and coerced confessions have also been associated with lengthy and confrontational interrogations. It is becoming common for police interrogations to be videotaped. Videotaped interrogations allow experts to assess the interrogation for coercive tactics and to evaluate the confession for markers of reliability or inconsistencies. It should be noted that experts are often unable to definitively establish a confession as false without other evidence exonerating the suspect.
Coerced-Compliant Confessions
Coerced-compliant confessions are false statements made under duress or pressure from coercive interrogative tactics. Individuals who have made a coerced-compliant confession know they are innocent and falsely confess to the interrogating officers in order to escape the aversive interrogation situation and/or gain some suggested benefits. A suspect who maintains his or her innocence throughout a lengthy interrogation can increase the aggression and pressure from investigating officers, who believe that the suspect is guilty. Generally, a person who makes a coerced- compliant confession has a goal of ending the interrogation, getting out of the interrogation room, and being able to go home because he or she believes that confessing will reduce the potential punishment. The suspect often does not realize the consequences of making a confession and may believe that if he or she says what police want to hear, then he or she will be allowed to leave the interrogation. Often, these individuals believe that they can recant their confession afterward and that their innocence will be recognized by the justice system.
Coerced-Internalized Confessions
A confession is considered to be coerced-internalized when an individual comes to believe that he or she committed a crime for which the individual is actually innocent. Coerced-internalized confessions share many aspects of coerced- compliant confessions (e.g., the person is under duress from interrogators), but they are distinct in that the suspect comes to develop a false memory of committing the crime. Research has demonstrated the malleability of human memory and the phenomenon of false memories. Suspects who make coerced-internalized confessions are not necessarily confessing to achieve a goal; these individuals truly come to believe that they are responsible for the crime. Often, police will use tactics such as lying to the suspect and telling the suspect that there is either eyewitness or forensic evidence tying the suspect to the crime. Some circumstances can make a person especially vulnerable to coerced-internalized confessions, such as experiencing memory problems, being under the influence of medications or illegal drugs which impair memory, being severely tired, or being especially anxious and confused. Often, individuals who give a coerced-internalized confession are highly suggestible and can be from vulnerable populations including persons with learning disabilities.
Coerced Confessions in the Court System
A confession is powerful evidence against a defendant during a criminal trial. When a confession is a central piece of evidence against a defendant, it is up to the judge to determine whether the confession is admissible. Admissibility rules vary by legal jurisdiction. The criteria for determining the admissibility of a confession are generally based on whether the statement was voluntary or due to coercion, and that determination is evaluated on the totality of the circumstances. If a confession was obtained through the use of coercion, a judge further assesses the confession to identify whether illegal coercive tactics were used. In addition, confessions are usually evaluated for markers of accuracy, such as corroboration by other evidence.
If a suspect is convicted of a crime based on a coerced confession, it is likely that the conviction would be upheld in appellate courts, even if the individual recanted the confession. If a confession is retracted, and the individual who gave the confession is adamant, it was coerced, and given under duress, additional issues arise. If the defendant is on trial by jury, there is a question of how well the juries are able to understand what a coerced confession is and apply that understanding in their judgment. In the courtroom, the judge ultimately is in control of whether evidence requires interpretation by an expert witness. Researchers have recognized the importance of having an expert witness testify about the psychology of interrogations and coerced confessions to help the jury understand the circumstances.
If a coerced confession is used as evidence against an innocent person who is convicted, this poses two large issues within the justice system. First, an innocent person can be sent to prison for years based on coerced confession evidence. Even when an innocent person who was wrongfully convicted is later exonerated, his or her life may never return to normal. The time spent in prison, and strain on family and loved ones of the wrongfully convicted, can uproot and change a person’s life forever. The second issue that arises when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted is that the real perpetrator does not justly receive legal punishment for the crime. In addition, it is possible that the real perpetrator may still be in the community, committing further crimes. Often a confession, even a coerced confession, will end an investigation. If investigators believe that they have caught the perpetrator and that individual confesses, they usually will not continue to investigate other suspects.
Prevalence of Coerced Confessions
It has been well established that coercive tactics used by interrogating officers can lead to coerced false confessions; however, it is difficult to tell how often coerced confessions occur. Usually, confessions can only be determined to be false based on clear physical evidence that the individual in question was not the perpetrator or through clear evidence that another person committed the crime. Generally, DNA evidence is the only distinguishing piece of evidence to exonerate an innocent person who gave a coerced false confession. According to the Innocence Project, an organization that helps exonerate falsely imprisoned people in the United States, as of January 2016, 27% (or 88 cases) of exonerations of the wrongfully convicted included evidence of false confessions or admissions of guilt.
Coerced Confessions in Research
False confessions, including coerced confessions, have been studied extensively by psychologists. There are several researchers widely recognized as leaders in the area of interrogations, false confessions, and coerced confessions. These experts have conducted many studies, and written authoritative reports, on false and coerced confessions. Once a confession is on the record, it is almost impossible to distinguish a false confession from a true confession. Research has shown that innocent people sometimes make false confessions; however, many people cannot understand how this could happen. When asked, participants recognized that coercive tactics may lead to a confession but mainly believed that coercive tactics would not lead to a false coerced confession. Furthermore, it was easier for participants to deem a confession as false when explicit acts of police coercion were used as compared to subtle acts of coercion. Researchers have also demonstrated that when participants falsely confess in experimental scenarios, some internalize their confession (i.e., come to believe that they committed an offense for which they were factually innocent). Comparisons between samples of the general public and police officers have demonstrated that officers are generally no better than the public at detecting false and coerced confessions; however, officers are more confident in their judgments. Moreover, research has also indicated that regardless of whether a confession is designated as coerced, jurors often do not discount the confession appropriately.
References:
- Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
- Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
- Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7(3), 125–128. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x
- Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 211–227. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9
- Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74(4), 979–1112.