Introduction
Why would someone admit to a crime they didn’t commit? For decades, this question puzzled both public and legal systems. Over the last 40 years, scientific research has provided answers. Answers that reveal how false confessions happen, most vulnerable populations, and how these confessions can lead to wrongful convictions. This article explores growing research that has helped courts, lawyers, and juries better understand confession evidence and possible misdirection.
Methods
The findings come from a combination of research methods. These include real false confessions case studies, laboratory simulations of police interrogations, and field research in police stations and prisons. This also includes results from standardized psychological assessments like the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. The scale measures the degree of vulnerability of a person falling prey to influence during questioning. This multidisciplinary, science-based approach explores how interrogation tactics and human psychology can lead to false admissions of guilt.
Findings
Researchers identified three main steps that often lead to a false confession. The first is misclassification. This occurs when police mistakenly assume someone is guilty and treat them like a suspect. The second is coercion. Interrogations can become psychologically or physically intense, resulting in confusion or desperation in the suspect. The final is contamination. Interrogators might unintentionally give away important facts about the crime which the suspect then includes in the confession. This makes the confession appear credible even if it’s not.
Certain individuals are especially vulnerable to giving false confessions. These groups include youth, individuals with mental health issues, those easily influenced, or the compliant (likely to follow authority). The story of Engin Raghip highlights the power of science to right past wrongs. Juries wrongfully convicted the young man based on a false confession. Years after his conviction, experts re-examined his case. They used newer psychological research to explain the unreliability of his confession, ultimately helping to free him.
Implications
This research has led to meaningful changes. Many jurisdictions now record police interrogations to provide a clearer picture of what occurred during questioning. Police forces have also adopted new interviewing techniques designed to reduce coercion and contamination. Courts are likelier to consider expert psychological testimony when evaluating confession evidence. Perhaps most importantly, the findings emphasize the need for improved legal protections for vulnerable individuals like teenagers.
Limitations
Despite growing awareness, the justice system has been slow to fully embrace these findings. Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges still believe that “innocent people don’t confess.” This resistance to scientific evidence can delay reforms and perpetuate wrongful convictions. Also, while tools like the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale have proven useful, they are not perfect. More research is key to further determine how to address and assess vulnerability in legal settings.
Reference
Kassin, S. M., Redlich, A. D., Alceste, F., & Luke, T. J. (2022). The Science-Based Pathways to Understanding False Confessions and Wrongful Convictions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 68–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621999331
About the Author
Maryam Dawood is an Honours Bachelor of Science graduate in Forensic Psychology from the University of Toronto, with research experience centered on legal decision-making, correctional psychology, and the stigmatization of offenders. She intends to pursue a Master of Science in Forensic Psychology, where she will explore wrongful convictions and self-stigma among justice-involved individuals to support evidence-based reforms and rehabilitation. Connect with Maryam on LinkedIn.
SCIFAA 