One of the major assumptions regarding false confessions is "no one would ever confess to a crime they did not commit." It is an assumption that has been stated over and over by legacy interrogation proponents, selling it as "common sense." In this article I will red team this assumption by using a key assumptions check in this article.
What are false confessions?
False confessions are admissions of guilt for crimes not committed by the confessing individual. These confessions can occur for a variety of reasons and under different circumstances, often as a result of coercive, misleading, or high-pressure interrogation techniques employed by law enforcement. False confessions can also arise due to the suspect's mental vulnerabilities, such as youth, intellectual disability, or psychological disorders, which make them more susceptible to the pressures and manipulations of an interrogation. Such confessions are a significant concern in the criminal justice system because they can lead to wrongful convictions, waste valuable resources, and cause irrevocable harm to innocent individuals.
False confessions are a significant and concerning phenomenon in the criminal justice system, leading to wrongful convictions and undermining public faith in the legal process. There are several factors that contribute to false confessions, and one of the most crucial is the interrogation technique used by law enforcement. High-pressure tactics, sleep deprivation, and prolonged periods of questioning can all contribute to an individual confessing to a crime they didn't commit. This has been supported by numerous studies, including one by Kassin et al. (2010), which examined the risk factors associated with police-induced confessions and found that coercion tactics and the psychology of the interrogated were significant contributors to false confessions.
Legacy interrogation techniques and those this-many step systems that are taught by companies and state law enforcement academies have been criticized for increasing the likelihood of false confessions. While these methods effectively elicit confessions (often their only goal), critics argue that the manipulative strategies can push innocent individuals to confess to crimes they didn't commit. Techniques like "minimization," where the investigator may downplay the seriousness of the offense, can provide a psychological out for a stressed and cornered suspect, leading to a false admission of guilt (Leo, 2008).
Psychological vulnerabilities also play a role. Minors, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and those with mental illnesses are particularly susceptible to the pressures of an interrogation environment. Gudjonsson’s theory of "suggestibility" explains how some individuals are more susceptible to leading questions and may change their account based on interrogator feedback (Gudjonsson, 2003).
It's important to note that false confessions don't just affect the individual confessing but also divert resources away from finding the actual perpetrator. Some jurisdictions have begun to adopt "best practices" for interrogations, such as recording the entire interrogation process, to reduce the incidence of false confessions and improve the reliability of true confessions (Drizin & Leo, 2004).
What is Red Teaming?
The concept of red teaming has its roots in military strategy and war games, where one group is tasked with challenging another to identify vulnerabilities and improve defensive measures. The use of "red" and "blue" teams in military exercises likely dates back to the Cold War era, where "Red" commonly represented the Soviet Union and its allies, while "Blue" represented NATO countries. These exercises aimed to simulate real-world scenarios in a controlled environment to better understand how each side would act and react, thereby providing valuable insights into both strengths and weaknesses.
Red teaming encompasses a variety of techniques aimed at evaluating different aspects of an organization's plans, policies, or security measures. One popular method is the "Key Assumptions Check," where the red team rigorously assesses the foundational assumptions underlying a strategy or operation to ascertain their validity. This helps in identifying any flawed or overly optimistic assumptions that could jeopardize the project. Another technique is "Alternative Futures Analysis," which involves creating different future scenarios to test how resilient a plan or strategy is against unexpected developments. "Devil's Advocacy" is another common method; here, one or more members of the red team adopt a contrarian viewpoint, critiquing the plan or decision from that perspective to uncover potential weaknesses. Together, these techniques offer a multi-faceted approach to identifying biases, scrutinizing assumptions and ensuring that strategies are both robust and flexible.
Key Assumption Check
Back to the major assumption when it comes to false confessions,
"No one would ever confess to a crime they didn't commit."
1. Is this logical?
At first glance, the confession assumption may appear logical as anyone would think that admitting guilt for a crime one did not commit would bring severe consequences. However, 29% of the 375 Innocence Project DNA exonerations as of 2020 involved false confessions. False confessions have and continue to occur.
2. Is this accurate?
The assumption is not accurate. Studies and legal records indicate that people do sometimes confess to crimes they haven't committed. According to the Innocence Project, about 25% of people exonerated through DNA evidence had given false confessions (Innocence Project, 2023). This is also reflected in psychological research about the vulnerability of human memory and susceptibility to coercion (Kassin et al., 2010).
3. Is this based on preconceived notions or biases?
The assumption may be based on the preconceived notion that the criminal justice system is infallible, or that people would act rationally in stressful situations. This bias doesn't consider various human factors, including psychological vulnerabilities and systemic issues within the criminal justice system.
4. Is this based on historical analogies, and if so, are they relevant?
The assumption doesn't appear to be based on historical analogies, but rather on a simplified view of human behavior and the justice system.
5. What has to happen for this to become true?
For this assumption to be true, every individual would need to act rationally at all times, the justice system would have to be free from any form of corruption or human error, and psychological factors like stress or mental illness could not influence a person's decision-making process.
6. How much confidence do the investigators have that this will happen?
Given the existing evidence, researchers and experts in psychology and law have low confidence that this assumption could ever hold true in all circumstances. The presence of even one false confession undermines the validity of this assumption.
7. If this becomes true, will it remain true under all conditions?
Even if it were true in some situations, it's unlikely that it would remain true under all conditions, considering the complexities involved. Factors like systemic corruption, psychological vulnerabilities, or even new technologies that could manipulate evidence could alter the dynamics.
8. If this proves to be untrue, how would that alter the plan?
If the assumption proves untrue (which evidence suggests it already is), any plan based on it would need fundamental revisions. For instance, criminal investigations would need to place less reliance on confessions and more on concrete evidence. Legal reforms could be called for to ensure that confessions are not unduly coerced and that adequate legal representation is provided to mitigate the risk of false confessions.
In summary, the assumption that "No one would ever confess to a crime they didn't commit" is not supported by empirical evidence and overlooks a variety of human and systemic factors.
Legacy coercive, accusatorial techniques and systems use methods that have and can produce false confessions. These miscarriages of justice have locked innocent people in prison for crimes they never committed. To make matters worse, the real perpetrators of these most heinous of crimes remain at large to offend again and again while avoiding justice.
At Insight & Integrity, we are advocates for ethical and science-based interviewing (SBI) techniques. SBI doesn't use coercive risk factors that have been found to produce false confessions, instead it relies on research-based communication techniques. We also utilize red teaming techniques such as the key assumptions check to ignite critical thinking in investigators. All in all, SBI is exceptional for investigations. What are you missing in your investigations?
Bibliography:
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol82/iss3/3/
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook. John Wiley & Sons.
Hoffman, B. G. (2017). Red teaming: How your business can conquer the competition by challenging everything. Random House Audio Publishing Group.
Innocence Project (2023). https://innocenceproject.org/
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Leo, R. A. (2008). Police Interrogation and American Justice. Harvard University Press.
Kommentarer