False Confessions: A Look into What They Are and Their Historical Context

Introduction

False confessions are one of the most perplexing and consequential phenomena in criminal justice. They raise critical ethical questions, challenge legal systems worldwide, and carry devastating consequences for innocent people. Why would someone falsely admit guilt, often at great legal and social cost? This question has puzzled jurists, psychologists, sociologists, and investigators for centuries.

Witch No 1. By Joseph E., ca. 1837-1914, artist, depicting confessions and executions

Understanding false confessions requires more than cataloging individual failures. It requires examining how interrogation methods, cognitive pressures, and investigative decision-making interact. In this series of articles, we explore false confessions through that lens, beginning with definitions, categories, and historical context. Throughout the series, we also examine how Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) offers a modern, research-supported framework for reducing the risk of false confessions by prioritizing reliable information over confession-driven outcomes.

Though false confessions are not a new issue, they have received renewed attention in recent decades, particularly following DNA exonerations and the work of organizations such as the Innocence Project. These cases of false confessions, wrongful convictions (FCWC) are rarely isolated errors. They are often the predictable result of coercive interrogation practices, confirmation bias, investigative failures, and an overreliance on confessions as evidence.

The cost of false confessions is so significant that it has generated extensive interdisciplinary research spanning law, psychology, sociology, and criminology. Researchers such as Dr. Saul Kassin and Dr. Richard Leo have demonstrated that false confessions are not anomalies but known risks associated with certain interrogation tactics and investigative cultures. Their work underscores a central lesson echoed in Science-Based Interviewing. The problem is not that people sometimes confess falsely. The problem is how interviews are conducted and how information is evaluated.

By the end of this series, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of false confessions, from their psychological mechanisms and historical roots to the modern interviewing practices that reduce their likelihood, remove false confession risk factors, and strengthen investigative integrity.

Defining False Confessions

False confessions are admissions of guilt for crimes the confessor did not commit. They most often occur during police interrogations, though they can also arise spontaneously. In the legal system, false confessions are especially dangerous because they can redirect investigations, contaminate evidence, and reinforce confirmation bias once guilt is presumed.

To understand how and why false confessions occur, scholars have identified several categories that reflect different psychological and situational dynamics. These distinctions are critical for investigators, as different interrogation approaches can increase or decrease the risk of each type.

Types of False Confessions

Voluntary False Confessions

These occur without external pressure. Individuals may confess to gain attention, protect another person, or due to mental illness or delusional beliefs.

Coerced-Compliant False Confessions

These arise when individuals confess to escape an aversive interrogation environment, even though they know they are innocent. Fatigue, stress, authority pressure, and a desire to end questioning are common drivers.

Coerced-Internalized False Confessions

In these cases, innocent individuals come to believe they committed the crime, often after prolonged questioning, suggestive tactics, or exposure to false evidence. Memory distrust plays a significant role.

Research consistently shows that coercive interrogation techniques increase the likelihood of compliant and internalized false confessions. Science-Based Interviewing addresses this risk by avoiding guilt-presumptive questioning, focusing on information, and emphasizing open-ended, non-leading information gathering.

Key Terms to Understanding False Confessions

Accusatory Interviewing

Accusatory interviewing refers to an interrogation approach that begins with a presumption of guilt and is structured to elicit a confession rather than to gather information. This style commonly involves leading or closed-ended questions, confrontation, minimization and maximization tactics, and selective evidence presentation. Accusatory interviewing increases the risk of false confessions by narrowing investigative focus, amplifying confirmation bias, and discouraging alternative explanations. In False Confession, Wrongful Conviction (FCWC) cases, accusatory interviewing often serves as the initiating event that anchors subsequent investigative errors.

Cognitive Interview

A non-coercive, memory-focused interviewing technique developed to enhance accurate recall. It relies on psychological principles of memory retrieval and is designed to reduce contamination and error, making it especially effective in witness and victim interviews.

Compliance

The tendency to agree with authority figures, even when doing so conflicts with one’s own interests or knowledge. Compliance is a frequent mechanism in coerced-compliant false confessions, especially during prolonged or high-pressure interrogations.

Cooperation

Willing engagement with investigators during questioning. While cooperation is generally desirable, it becomes problematic when a cooperative individual is exposed to manipulative or coercive interrogation tactics that increase false confession risk.

Coercive Interrogation

Interrogation practices that apply undue psychological pressure, including false evidence ploys, minimization or maximization techniques, extended questioning, or isolation. These methods significantly elevate the likelihood of eliciting false confessions.

Corroboration

Independent evidence that supports or contradicts a statement. Corroboration is essential when evaluating confessions and must include consideration of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. In some wrongful conviction cases, additional confessions or statements from others are treated as corroboration when, in fact, they are themselves false or derivative of the original confession. This form of circular validation obscures the absence of independent evidence and is a recurring factor in False Confession, Wrongful Conviction (FCWC) cases.

False Confession, Wrongful Conviction (FCWC)

This term refers to cases in which an individual falsely confesses, is subsequently convicted, and the true perpetrator or perpetrators remain at large. FCWC cases illustrate how false confessions can anchor investigative decision-making, contaminate evidence interpretation, and suppress alternative hypotheses. From a Science-Based Interviewing perspective, FCWC cases highlight the necessity of treating statements as evidence that must be evaluated and tested rather than accepted as proof.

Pseudoscientific Lie Detection

Practices or methods presented as scientific but lacking empirical validation, peer review, or reliable accuracy. In interview and interrogation training curricula, pseudoscientific lie-detection techniques plague instruction despite decades of research showing they perform no better than chance. Their continued use overshadows fundamental, evidence-based skills such as effective questioning, active listening, rapport and the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). In some systems, these techniques are used to determine whether an individual is “probably guilty” or “most likely guilty,” triggering a shift into confession-driven questioning and tactics aimed at the lone goal of getting an admission. This process amplifies confirmation bias and guilt bias and substantially increases the risk of false confessions and FCWC cases.

Risk Factors

Individual or situational characteristics that increase susceptibility to false confessions, including age, cognitive limitations, mental health concerns, fatigue, isolation, and interrogation length.

Science-Based Interviewing (SBI)

An approach to interviewing grounded in peer-reviewed research, field-validation, and psychological science. SBI prioritizes accurate and reliable information gathering, minimizes investigator bias, and avoids coercive practices. It treats statements as evidence requiring careful evaluation rather than as objectives in themselves.

Suggestibility

A tendency to accept and incorporate information suggested by others. High suggestibility increases vulnerability to internalized false confessions, particularly during repetitive or leading questioning.

Vulnerability

The heightened susceptibility of certain individuals or populations, such as juveniles or those with cognitive impairments, to pressure, suggestion, or manipulation during interrogations.

History of False Confessions

False confessions are not a modern phenomenon. They are deeply rooted in historical legal systems that elevated confessions above other forms of evidence. Understanding this history clarifies why confession-driven thinking persists and why reform remains challenging.

Roman Law & Middle Ages

Roman law had a profound influence on the judicial systems of Europe throughout the Middle Ages, setting the groundwork for the legal tenets of confession. In Roman law, confessions were considered the "queen of evidence," and held in the highest regard for their supposed validity. This was underpinned by the Latin legal maxim "confessio est regina probationum," emphasizing the weight of a confession in legal proceedings. However, even Roman jurists like Ulpian and Paulus expressed reservations. Paulus, in particular, cautioned against placing unquestioned reliance on confessions, especially when obtained under conditions of torture or extreme duress.

The Middle Ages took these Roman ideas about confessions and added them to the feudal and religious systems that made up medieval society. During the Inquisition and similar tribunals, torture was often used to secure confessions, perpetuating the Roman legacy but adding layers of religious and social complexity. Throughout this period, the internal debate among jurists and theologians over the validity and ethics of such confessions continued to evolve. This nuanced debate laid the groundwork for more enlightened views on confessions, which would emerge during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, further shaping the Western legal tradition.

John H. Langbein's seminal work, "Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime," provides an account to examine the pervasive use of torture in judicial systems from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. Langbein expands on the mechanics of torture in extracting confessions, not just as a Roman legacy but as a legally institutionalized practice well into the European Ancien Régime. His research uncovers how the reliance on confessions, deeply rooted in Roman law, not only persisted but was systematized in forms of judicial torture that undermined the very essence of justice.

Langbein's work serves as a critical reference for understanding the foundational influence of Roman law and the complex inheritance of these ideas during the Middle Ages, which were marked by both ecclesiastical oversight and feudal practices. It informs our understanding of how the weight given to confessions led to methods that compromised the integrity of the legal process, casting a long shadow that still provokes ethical and legal debates today.

False Confessions and Witch Trials

In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Europe and later America were plagued by witch trials, one of the most famous being the Salem Witch Trials. Torture methods like pressing and water tests coerced many into false confessions of witchcraft. The presumption was that a confession, however obtained, was the surest evidence of guilt, leading to a wave of mass hysteria and wrongful executions.

In addition to the Salem Witch Trials, witch hunts across Europe were also highlighted by torture and confessions. The infamous "Malleus Maleficarum," or "The Witch Hammer," a guide written in 1487 by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, codified

the methods to identify, interrogate, and execute witches. Torture was often used to elicit confessions, leading many innocent people to falsely admit to practicing witchcraft.

"Direct and immediate commerce with the devil, although necessary to witchcraft, was likely to be secret and hidden, to be revealed only through torture and interrogation once suspects had already been identified on other grounds."

It is estimated that tens of thousands of alleged witches were executed during this period. The prevalence of false confessions in these trials reveals not only the fallibility of confessions as evidence but also how societal hysteria can create an environment in which justice is eclipsed by fear and superstition.

The Era of the Third Degree

The phrase "third degree" refers to interrogation techniques used by American police officers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The methods involved physical abuse, extended periods of questioning, and extreme psychological pressure aimed at extracting confessions. While these tactics often yielded admissions of guilt, they were highly unreliable, like their historical counterparts, and led to many false confessions. Public sentiment against these techniques began to grow, culminating in legal challenges. One significant case was Brown v. Mississippi (1936), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that confessions obtained through physical coercion could not be used as evidence.

Birth of the Reid Technique

As a response to the backlash against the third degree, American law enforcement agencies began seeking more sophisticated and 'humane' methods of interrogation. One significant development was the Reid Technique, created by John E. Reid in the 1950s. The Reid Technique replaced physical coercion with psychological manipulation, focusing on creating a setting in which the suspect would feel more inclined to confess. The technique involves three primary stages: factual analysis, behavior analysis interview, and the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation. Reid-style interrogation tactics and methods are ubiquitous in law enforcement and private sector curricula across the United States.

Although it initially gained widespread adoption and was seen as a revolutionary step forward, the Reid Technique itself has come under scrutiny for extracting false confessions, especially among vulnerable populations such as juveniles and individuals with cognitive impairments. Researchers like Saul Kassin have pointed out that the Reid Technique's psychologically coercive tactics can lead to false confessions and have called for its reform.

“The blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.”

Conclusion

Modern research on false confessions and wrongful convictions confirms what the Supreme Court recognized decades ago. Coercion in interrogations is not limited to physical abuse. Psychological pressure, manipulation, and confession-driven questioning can be just as corrosive to truth and justice. Science-Based Interviewing reflects this understanding by rejecting coercion in all its forms and by treating statements as evidence that must be evaluated, corroborated, and challenged. Preventing False Confession, Wrongful Conviction cases requires moving beyond the idea that legality alone ensures reliability. History, science, and the law all point to the same conclusion. How information is obtained matters.

As Earl Warren, writing for the majority in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), cautioned:

“The blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.”

That warning remains as relevant today as it was then.

False Confession References

Bond, C. F., Jr, & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2

Broedel, H. P. (2003). The Malleus Maleficarum. Retrieved from Oapen.org. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/35002/341393.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Fisher, R. P. & Geiselman, R. E.(1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Gross, S. R., & Shaffer, M. (2012). Exonerations in the United States, 1989–2012. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2092195

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2021). The science-based pathways to understanding false confessions and wrongful convictions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 633936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633936

Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2011). Criminal Interrogation And Confessions (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett.

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: looking ahead. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9217-5

Langbein, J. H. (2006). Torture and the law of proof : Europe in the ancien régime: Europe and England in the ancient regime. University of Chicago Press.

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

Norton, M. B. (2007). In the devil’s snare: The Salem witchcraft crisis of 1692. Vintage.

Watson, A. (Ed.). (1998). The digest of Justinian, Volume 1. University of Pennsylvania

Press.