subject: Debunking The False Confession Syndrome [print this page] We hear a lot about false confessions and the "false confession syndrome" in the media. Indeed, there is even a Ph.D. (or two) who makes his living trying to convince the American public that suspects are "made" to confess falsely with a high degree of frequency.
I think it's funny that the case studies people use to make their point about false confessions are all 5-12 years old! If this phenomena was as pervasive as the critics claim, why aren't there cases we can study which are 2 or 3 weeks old?
When I actually study the "false confession" cases referenced, I find that they all have one thing in common: these are false admission cases, not false confession cases. What's the difference?
An admission is an acknowledgment to the asked question, a mere positive indicator. For instance, if an interviewer repeatedly asks a suspect if they committed the crime in question and the suspect finally says "Yeah" that is an admission, not a confession.
In several highly publicized cases, investigators have been dealing with suspects who are either young or mentally challenged. In response to repeated "Did you do it" type of questions, the suspects finally "gave in" and either nodded affirmatively or said "yes." In some of these cases, further investigation makes it seem clear that the suspects really didn't commit the crime.
These were not confessions to begin with; thus they were certainly not proven to be false confessions.
A confession is a detailed statement which provides facts which show the following:
* the method in which the crime was committed
* the tool, force or weapon used
* the description of the location (crime scene)
* a description of the actual crime (how it was done)
* location of any evidence from the crime
* motive (reason) why crime was committed.
If you find a person who can give you the above information, that's either a statement from a person who was WITH the perpetrator or it's the actual perpetrator.
Think of a detailed confession as a safety net for the interviewer. If someone can give you the detailed information you require in securing a true confession, you have the right suspect!
Once a suspect makes an admission, don't quit interviewing! In fact, once an admission is secured, there is no better time to get detailed information from the suspect. In a real admission leading to a confession, once the floodgates are open, they will continue to tell you everything about the crime.
Too many law enforcement officers stop the interview process once the elements of the crime are met, never securing the true confession.
So, let's set the record straight. What we have is a rash of incomplete statements made by suspects, coupled with arresting/interviewing officers who stop the process too soon - not a new epidemic of false confessions.
That doesn't sound nearly as sexy as False Confession Syndrome... I probably won't get on the talk show circuit by using common sense!
