2024 False Confessions Upload Vs 2 PDF

False Confessions Dr C. Daniel Hornyik Why would you admit a crime you didn’t commit? Unit 2 Legal Psychology – Program for next 2 lectures My Lectures (C. Daniel Hornyik) 1 – False Confessions (& Interrogations) 2 – Eyewitness Testimonies  Prologue In the past 30 years, i...

False Confessions Dr C. Daniel Hornyik Why would you admit a crime you didn’t commit? Unit 2 Legal Psychology – Program for next 2 lectures My Lectures (C. Daniel Hornyik) 1 – False Confessions (& Interrogations) 2 – Eyewitness Testimonies  Prologue In the past 30 years, in the USA, there were 2500+ exonerations of wrongly convicted individuals (375 via DNA evidence). As of 07/12/2021 - National Registry of Exonerations; University of Michigan 69% of wrongful convictions involved Eyewitness misidentifications - the biggest single cause! (However, the number was 75% 2 years ago!) 29% of wrongful convictions involved false confessions. -- 60% of homicide cases Go to this link to see further details: https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerati ons-in-the-united-states/ What will we learn today? False confessions are more prevalent than common sense would make us think Why people confess to crimes they did not commit is a complex issue The way the police interviews people is essential in false confessions The consequences of a false confession are serious PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISMS OF FALSE CONFESSIONS – BASIC, BUT often COUNTERINTUITIVE The Great Fire of London & the Trial of Robert Hubert, 1666 One of the 1st known false confessions in history. Perugia, Italy - 2008  Suspect Interviews Identifying a suspect through Crime scene evidence Witnesses & informants Personal judgment during pre-interrogation interview --physical appearance -- suspect’s demeanor, micro-behaviors Most often you are not invited for an “interrogation”. You are asked to visit the station for “a brief conversation”, or “to clear up some minor issues” First encounters, first impressions Willis & Todorov (2006): People make up their mind after 100 ms-s of seeing a face Participants shown photographs of unknown people for 1/10 sec Clearly differentiated between the photos on judgments of their traits: e.g. trustworthy, likeable, aggressive etc Real faces, computer generated faces People, in general, are more influenced by early informations than later ones Long history of several lines of research. More on it later. Further reasons for becoming a suspect & invited for an “interview” A witness (mis)reports seeing them Surveillance footage of the area Physical trace evidence Problematic relationship with the victim History of similar crimes At first, usually just a hunch of the detectives. What is a confession? A confession is the name given to an admission made by a defendant in criminal proceedings. The general rule is that a confession is admissible evidence against the person who made it. Unless it is proven unreliable because Physical impossibility to commit the crime The real perpetrator is found & their guilt objectively demonstrated (e.g. DNA) and/or Evidence establishing the defendant’s innocence (e.g. DNA) (The crime did not happen) 4 possible outcomes of Interrogations - - 2 Problematic False Denials A guilty suspect claims that they are innocent (and gets away with it). False Confessions An innocent suspect claims that they are guilty. True Confession Confession; Guilty Correct Acquittal No confession, not guilty  What is a false confession? Definition A false confession is an admission to a criminal act – usually accompanied by a narrative of how and why the crime occurred – that the confessor did not commit Central questions 1.Why are there so many Problem instances of false -False confessions are difficult to confession in the modern discover court system? -No state or organization keeps record of 2.Where is the root of this them problem? - They are typically not publicized  Types of False Confessions (Kassin and Wrightsm 1985) 1. Voluntary: This type of confession is made without any pressure from the outside. The person willingly and knowingly confesses to a crime. 2. Coerced-compliant: This type of confession is made only to escape an interrogation that the person may see as aversive, avoid harm, or to get a benefit that was promised 3. Coerced-internalized: People who make the confession actually come to believe they have committed the crime 1. Voluntary false confessions A voluntary confession is a false confession offered in the absence of any obvious external pressure To protect the real criminal (family, friend) Kidnapping of the The individual is seeking Lindbergh publicity and fame - major baby criminal investigations. A guilt-ridden person, for reasons real or imagined, seeks absolution by confessing (Gudjonsson & MacKeith, 1988  2. Coerced- Compliant False Confessions An act of mere public The Central Park compliance Five The suspects are fully aware that they are admitting to a crime they did not commit but bow to social pressure This is often based on the erroneous belief that the short term benefits of a confession outweigh the long-term costs of a confession 3. Coerced-Internalized False Confessions The suspect, either temporarily or permanently, comes wrongly to believe The case of Michael during the police interrogation that they Crowe really did commit the crime of which they are accused It occurs when people develop a profound distrust of their own memory. The memory is often so changed that the original memory becomes irretrievable.  4 Types of False Confession Coerced Voluntary Instrumenta Central Park Five Kidnapping l Lindberg Baby Possible reason: protect someone Possible reason: end interrogation else or gain notoriety Internalized Michael Crowe Thomas Sawyer Possible reason: persuaded of Possible reason: mental illness own guilt Part 2 Why do People Falsely Confess? – The Person What Leads to Confession? Dispositional risk 1. factors Situational risk 2. factors Innocence as risk 3. factor  Dispositional risk factors a) Adolescence and Immaturity b) Cognitive and Intellectual Disability c) Personality and Psychopathology a) Adolescence and Immaturity Adolescents are less mature than adults, which manifests in: The case of Michael Crowe – Impulsive decision making – Decreased ability to consider long- term consequences – Engagement in risky behaviors – Increased susceptibility to negative influences The developmental abilities are highly relevent to the behaviour in the interrogation room b) Cognitive and Intellectual Disability There are a number of tendencies exhibited by people with mental retardation: – Heightened susceptibility to influence – Rely on authority figures for solutions to everyday problems – Please persons in authority – Seek out friends – Feign competence – Exhibit a short attention span – Experience memory gaps – Lack impulse control – Accept blame for negative outcomes More likely to yield to leading questions and change their answer in response to mild negative feedback c) Personality and Psychopathology Persons with antisocial personality disorder, (remember Cleckley’s characterization) – more likely to be involved in offending – prone to lie for short term instrumental gain – less concerned about the consequences of their behaviour – This increases their tendency to make false denials & false confessions depending on their need at the time Persons with mental illness are over- represented in cases of false confessions Substance dependence/abuse is an additional risk factor for false confessions ADHD is risk factor Part 3 The “Interview” & the “Interrogation” Inside the Interrogation Room The Box Miranda Rights (USA) vs. Police CAUTION (UK) You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something what you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may become evidence during the trial. Right for attorney The Reid Technique – Phase 1 BAI (Behavioral Analysis Interview) Non-confrontational - Designed to detect if the suspect is lying or not List of deception cues + 15 structured questions Underlying idea: Anxiety triggered by hiding the truth  Mostly non-verbal cues (e.g. gaze aversion) + Some verbal statements (e.g. “I swear”; “as far as I recall”) Final Decision: “Global assessment of suspect’s behavior” Problems No scientific evidence for the deception cues; Cartoon-ish People try to hide that they are lying People are bad at detecting liars Testing the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) Luke (2019) Cues to deception are highly exaggerated There are no behavioral cues to deception (e.g. Pinocchio’s nose) Laypeople are bad at detecting them – 53% accuracy Trained professionals are only a bit better – 56% police; 57% trial judges; 65% secret agents What training does: makes professionals much more confident! Kassin & Fong (1999, US); Meissner & Kassin (2002, US police); Vrij (2006, UK); Participants made guilty vs innocent (steal money vs not) + incentivised to evade guilty identification during the BAI Independent observers could not differentiate between guilty & innocent during the key behavior eliciting questions On average – 56% accurate; 5.91 confident Trained in BAI – 46% accurate; 6.55 confident Police officers – 50% accurate; 7+ confident Alternative 1 -- Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique (Hartwig & Granhag, 2006) Pre-interview planning 1. stage Free recall (statement) 2. stage Specific questions (statement) 3. stage Confrontation with evidence at strategic 4. stage points of the interview Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique (Hartwig et al., 2006) Training-Study Accuracy rates Trained interviewers = 85% Untrained interviewers = 56% Cognitive Load Guilty suspects reported experiencing Solution A: more cognitive demand during the interview than did the innocent suspects Train lie-catchers interviewed with the SUE technique Alternative 2 – Cognitive Load Theory (Vrij, 2008) Lying is more cognitively demanding than truth-telling. Cognitive demand/load can be increased in multiple ways during a police interview – not just SUE. -- The goal: challenging the suspect to think harder. Reverse chronological order. Forced to maintain eye-contact & occasional unexpected question. Independent observers distinguished better between suspects (liars) & innocents. Reid Technique – Phase 2: (Confrontational) Interrogation 1) Precondition Suspect alone – (with the interrogator) In a specially designed room small windowless soundproof 2 armless chairs & 1 desk 1-way mirror 2) The 9 steps of interrogation Reid Technique – Phase 2 (Confrontational) Interrogation – 9 steps 2 major flows of the (Reid) Interrogation paradigm 1) It is “Milgramesque” – like the Milgram experiments – but even worse 2) It is Guilt-presumptive  (1) The “Milgramesque” nature of interrogations (Kassin, 2015) The Milgram Experiment (1963) -------------- The Police Interview The subject is isolated (no friends, family or social support) In a specially & carefully designed space (lab vs “the box”) Confronted by an authority figure (experimenter vs detective) Contractual agreement Receiving payment ahead vs Volunteering Signing consent form vs the Miranda waiver Deception (cover-story vs “it serves your best interest”) Series of relentless demands (the Milgram prompts vs the Reid-technique) Gradual escalation (15 V-s a time to 450 V – at the scene, minor role etc to full confession) Ethics (IRBs vs the “voluntariness” of the confession) The value of recording Students who saw the Milgram video had better estimations, appreciated the power of the situation more Proposal: all interrogations should be fully recorded (2) The Guilt-presumptive nature of interrogations “It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have all the evidence” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle). Guiding Handbook: Criminal Interrogation & Confessions Happens after Stage 1 concluded that the person is a “suspect”/”offender”. The authority figure that leads it already has the opinion that the person is guilty. The measure of the interrogation’s success is: a confession (“getting at the truth”) Why is this a problem if the suspect is innocent? Problems with 1st impressions The classic impression formation experiments of Solomon Asch 1 out of 6 traits different: Warm-Cold Same 6 traits in reverse order (positives first vs negatives first) The “getting to know you” experiments (Snyder & Swan, 1978) The partner (confederate) is an extrovert vs an introvert Self-fulfilling prophecy Conceptual replication: mock interrogators & suspects (Kassin, Goldtein & Savistky, 2003) Suspect made experimentally guilty vs innocent (steal money vs not) Varied baseline probability for mock-interrogators Told about suspects: “most are innocent” or “most are guilty” In “most guilty” condition -- Asked more coercive, aggressive questions Even more so for innocent suspects ! Independent evaluators watched the videotapes Judged “most are guilty” subjects as more guilty. Including the innocent. The Alternative: (UK; Non- confrontational) PEACE Method Developed in 1993 because of PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act; English Parliament, 1984) Non-confrontational Investigative Interviewing Technique “investigative mindset”: get as much information from the suspect as possible Further “probing” questions Inconsistencies challenged with further questions 2 types Cognitive Interview (cooperative suspects) Conversation Management (non-cooperative suspects) Evidence about success still inconclusive It appears: Confession rate same overall (50%), but less false Possible that Reid-like things still happen but outside of the actual official questioning of suspects  PEACE PROCESS P Planning and preparation E Engage and explain A Account, Clarify and Challenge C Closure E Evaluation  Interrogations in the USA vs UK Interrogation Methods: Information Gathering vs. Accusatorial Information-Gathering Methods - Accusatorial Methods – Reid PEACE (UK) Technique (USA) Establish rapport Establish control Use direct, positive confrontation Use psychological manipulation Employ open-ended, exploratory Employ closed-ended, questions confirmatory questions Primary goal is to obtain a Primary goal is to elicit information confession Focus on cognitive cues to Focus on anxiety cues to Part 4 Why do People Falsely Confess? – The Situation Situational risk factors a) Presentation of False Evidence b) Minimization & Maximization c) Physical Custodial and Isolation A) Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) 3. Inducing a 1. Target 2. False false event evidence confession  The ALT Key Experimental Paradigm What leads to 2 Classic Internalization & Experime Confabulation? ntal The Cheating Experimental Paradigm Paradigms The effects of presentation of false evidence a) The ALT key Experiment Kassin and Kiechel (1996) ➀ Signed confession (Compliance) ➁ Hallway confederate (Internalization) ➂ Details provided (Confabulation) Slow vs. fast pace No witness vs. Witness The ALT key Experiment Kassin and Kiechel (1996) Reaction Time Task Conditions -Confederate reads letters to be typed at either fast or Research Question IV1 = vulnerability (high vs. slow pace low) How easy do people confess falsely? Subjects instructed not to IV2 = witness (presence hit the ALT key because vs. computer would crash absence) Request Computer Crash Witness statement Compliance: subjects -The computer appears to - A confederate tells she asked to sign a “confession” crash after 1 minute saw subject hit the ALT Internalization: tells key or “I did not see -Distressed experimenter second confederate “He anything.” enteres & asks subject if says I hit the Alt- key” vs. they pressed the ALT key “I hit the Alt-key”) Confabulation: At a later time some of these participants “reconstruct" how they hit the ALT key (adding specific specific details) The ALT Key Experiment Kassin and Kiechel (1996) False confession in the lab Kassin and Kiechel (1996) Conclusion Kassin and Kiechel found that many participants often quickly convinced themselves that they had actually pressed the button. This study highlights how impressionable people can be in high pressure situations. External validity: The accusations of the experimenters were light compared to the interrogation tactics often utilized in police proceed These tense and stressful interviews can cause a suspect to admit guilt, in order to gain some leniency or charges that may be trumped up by the prosecution. b) The Cheating Studies - Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) Phase 1: Target event The participants were told: This is a study about gambling behaviour when individuals gamble with physical vs. virtual money Task: win as much money as possible by answering 15 questions correctly When you are wrong (red cross) = return money When you are correct (green tick) = take money (You were filmed while playing) Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) Video was created: The resulting clip ostensibly showed the subject collecting money from the bank when they should have returned it: signs on screen changed Original Doctored Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) Phase 2: False evidence Participants were told: There was a problem in the earlier session: the video showed that you took money from the bank when you had given an incorrect answer Told-video See-video participants participants Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) Phase 3: Inducing a false confession All subjects were asked to sign a confession form: If they sign => no reception of payment If they did not sign => meet the professor in charge Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) Presentation of False Evidence (Nash & Wade, 2010) Discussion 100% signed the confession form! These data provide further evidence that a combination of social demand, phoney evidence and false suggestion from a credible source can lead a substantial number of people to falsely confess and believe they committed an act they never did Situational risk factors a) Presentation of False Evidence b) Minimization & Maximization c) Physical Custodial and Isolation b) Minimization: Promises implied but not spoken Establishment of superficial friendship & fake kindness Interrogators are trained to minimize the crime through "theme development“ a process of providing moral justification or face-saving excuses (e.g. blaming the victim) Minimize the seriousness of the situation making confession seems like an expedient means of escape Research shows that minimization is particularly harmful! Suspects infer leniency in sentencing Experimental subjects estimate the same sentence as if leniency was explicitly promised c) Physical Custodial and Isolation Interrogation outside familiar surroundings Duration of interrogation – Recommendation: 30 minutes; maybe 2-ish – In proven cases of false confessions: 34% = 6-12 hours 39% = 12-24hours Mean = 16.3 hours c) Physical Custodial and Isolation Sleep deprivation Sleep deprivation may accompany prolonged periods of isolation and can heighten susceptibility to influence and impair decision-making abilities in complex tasks Incentive to Long remove high interrogati yourself from on distress situation  c) Physical Custodial and Isolation False confessions usually happen late-night or early morning Fatigue & sleep deprivation + hunger/thirst  self-control decline Cognitive functions Memory consolidation & distortions, real/unreal Rational analysis & evaluation  less resistant to persuasion Impulse-control & emotion-regulation Immediate impulses > Long-term goals (Davis & Leo, 2013)  Confession as decision-making Subjective Expected Utility Theory -- Rational Choice Some innocent suspects falsely confess because they feel that confession has a higher utility than denial – in some sense, it is the most rational choice. Believe that confessing is the only way to avoid severe punishment. Or, They want to end a stressful interrogation, believing that their proof of innocence will emerge later. Temporal discounting: 2 £ now, 5 £ in a month Proximal consequences > Distal consequences  Behaviour Preference for the smaller, immediate reward vs. larger, delayed reward The further away is the distal, the more pronounced the effect Stopping the process NOW Part 5 Why do People Falsely Confess? – Innocence as a risk factor What Leads to Confession? Dispositional risk 1. factors Situational risk 2. factors Innocence as risk 3. factor  Innocence as risk factor The psychology of innocence Innocent have the tendency to 'tell it like it was', and think that 'their innocence will shine through' & truth will prevail (Kassin, 2005). Wave Miranda rights – talk to police without legal help (instead of remain silent). More likely confess during difficult interrogations. Belief in “just world” (Lerner, 1980) -- “people get what they deserve & deserve what they get” Illusion of transparency (Gilovitch et al, 1998) --people tend to overestimate the extent to which their true thoughts, emotions, and other inner states can be seen by others Innocence & Waiving Miranda experiments (Kassin & Norwick, 2004) IV 1 – Commit mock-crime vs not IV 2 – “Detective McCarthy”: nice vs mean vs neutral Task: Convince him about innocence. If successful, extra cash. If fail: return for 2nd part of study: the trial (without reimbursement). Sign “Miranda right” decision: Can remain silent or talk to detective. On average: 58%: talk to detective – 36% Guilty vs 81% innocent No difference for the innocent based on style – even in “mean” condition! Why? – Guilty: “He’d figure out I’m guilty.” Innocent: “I have nothing to hide. He’ll figure out I’m innocent.” Innocence & Confessing experiments (Perillo & Kassin, 2011) Design & Procedure IV 1 – Committed academic misconduct vs not (helping a confederate) IV 2 – Told there is physical “evidence” vs not All accused of academic misconduct – asked to sign a confession (DV) Results In control group – 0% of innocents confessed In “evidence” condition – 50% of innocents confessed What was meant as a “threat” of evidence made them think it will save them Part 6 The Consequences of False Confessions The Consequences of False Confessions Jurors & Judges Eyewitnesses & Alibi witnesses Forensic Experts One Explanation – Forensic Confirmation Bias Self-fulfilling prophecy (Snyder & Swann, 1978) Confirmation Bias People seek out what they expect (e.g. Wason Card selection); People see what they expect (e.g. ambiguous or blurred images) Wishful seeing (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010) People see/interpret things based on their motivation Forensic Confirmation Bias (Kassin, Dror & Kukucka, 2013) The effects through which an individual’s pre-existing beliefs influence the collection, perception & interpretation of evidence during a criminal case. Forensic Confirmation Bias – Empirical Evidence Lange et al (2011) Degraded speech studies Recording of two people talking, filled with static. “Suspects” vs “Job applicants” were “heard” saying “gun”, “kill” etc Kukucka & Kassin (2014) Handwriting evidence 2 (different) handwritings: suspect and robbery note given to bank teller Confessed vs not The “confessed” was significantlyu more perceived as a match Test of the Corruptive Confessions Hypotheses (Kassin, Bogart & Kerner, 2012) Archival analysis DNA exonerated individuals who gave false confession vs not Number & Kind of errors? Multiple errors in 78% of confession cases vs 47% of no confession cases 63% bad forensic science Despite standardisation & reliability, contextual biases: other examiners & outside info Problem: They are blind that they are cognitively biased Itiel Dror’s studies on cognitive biases of forensic experts (e.g. 2006, 2011, 2018) Fingerprints, polygraphs 29% mistaken eyewitness ID What came 1st – confession or other errors? 2/3 of cases false confession came 1st Confession effects on alibis Teresa Fusco’s murder (1984, Nassau county, New York state) “Disappearance” of 20+ birthday party alibi witnesses after false confession Marion et al (2016) The Alibi witness experiment Participant, confederate, and the jar with 20$ bills next door All participants hear & partially see confederate working by next table Stage 1 - Experimenter’s accusation - 92% provide alibi to confederate Stage 2 – Experimenter tells update & asks for alibi confirmation a) confed denies stealing – 95% confirmed alibi The Cumulative Disadvantage Framework of False Confessions (Scherr et al, 2020) General consensus within the criminal justice system: False confessions are not a big problem, because of many “safety nets” No - The system becomes worse & worse (especially for the innocent) 1) Pre-custodial: Innocents decide to talk to the police without a lawyer 2) Especially in confrontational & guilt-presumptive questionings, innocent subjects come up with detailed false narratives 3) False confession & arrest kicks in the truth-seeking process across the board Eyewitnesses, alibi witnesses, forensic examiners 4) The case becomes extremely strong against the suspect at trial 5) Even after free, the post-conviction life is ruined – e.g. google searches The case of Kenzi Snyder (Brown) – the US exchange student in South Korea, accused for murder in 2001 Amanda Knox – The Timeline & Subsequent Forensic Confirmation Bias Her demeanor makes the police think she is guilty 4 day interrogation 4th day (November 5/6): from 10 PM to 6 AM Two confessions – typed by the police 1:45 AM 5:45 AM Retracted immediately when alone What Happened to Amanda Knox? (Saul Kassin interview) Listen the link in the last Activity segment. Part 7 Potential Solutions  Video Recording of Interrogations Video Recordings Permanent, objective record. Even if there is a recording, jurors see only a “recap” (of about 30 minutes) usually, the end-product of a long process. Even if people know the interrogation was coerceive, they do not discount it. The camera’s point of view matters (Lassiter et al, 2014) Suspect only vs. Equal-focus camera True both for jurors & highly experienced judges Time Limits on Interrogations No more than 4 hours False confessions usually follow a 6+ hour interrogation (Davis & Donahue, 2004)  Camera Perspective Bias (Lassiter, 2014) Perceptual Salience (Fiske & Taylor, 1975) 2 people facing each other and having a conversation Viewers sitting around in circle Who do the they attribute more influence? Lassiter’s Camera Focus experiments Videotaped mock interrogations in his laboratory. 3 camera angles: suspect vs interrogator vs both Randomly assigned p-s to watch one camera angle Asked: Was the situation coercive? Was the statement voluntary? If suspect in focus – less coercive & more voluntary. Fixing parts of the interrogation techniques Education on the Pseudoscience of Lie Detection No Pinocchio’s nose signs; no marked improvement by any training (only confidence boost) Banning the False Evidence lies during interrogations Allowed only in very few Western countries Banning Minimisation strategies that imply leniency Explicit promises of leniency are banned Replacing the Reid technique with other ones E.g. PEACE What Else Can be Done? (Kassin, 2017) 1) Public Policy 2) Reforms to Interrogation Practice 3) Raising Public Awareness