Abstract:
Coerced confessions have become a thorny issue in the American judicial system. There are incidences of individuals giving false evidence to the interrogator with little or no knowledge that the confessions shall have far reaching consequences on their conviction. Coerced confessions are however inadmissible in a court of law and the constitution provides for the protection of the suspect under the 5th and the 6th Amendment and the Miranda warnings.
I. Coerced Confessions:
Confessions are regarded as one of the most effective forms of evidence which can be presented in a court of law. Within the United States the prosecutors passionately looks for confessions in order for their arguments to have some weight in winning cases. The presentation of confessions to the judicial system has become a keenly sought goal as they are regarded as one of the persuasive evidence in winning cases. It should be noted that confessions usually have undeniable impacts on the jurors who have a high chance of being convinced on the basis of confessions than any other evidence brought before them (Berk-Seligson, 2009).
Each day within the United States, it has been established that many individuals are coerced to confess by the arresting authorities to crimes that they have not participated in. These confessions have far reaching impacts on these detainees with most being convicted, imprisoned and even facing executions basing on the confessions that they made. A number of researches have indicated that confession is the only single piece of evidence that has great influence on the jury in making his or her decision to convict. Technology improvement especially in the DNA has however indicated that confessions may be false leading to wrong conviction. The main reason as to what lead individuals into false confessions is to be found in the police coercion when gathering evidence during interrogations (Berk-Seligson, 2009).
II. History of Law Enforcement.
A. Constitutional Rights
The federal constitution provides for protection of the accused in an effort to create a fair judicial system that does not infringe on the rights even when an individual is a suspect. Any confessions that are obtained through coercion of the suspect are inadmissible in any court proceeding due to the privileges provided for by the constitution in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
B. 5th and 6th Amendments
The 5th and 6th Amendments address the rights of any accused individual who is in custody. The 5th Amendment in particular safeguards a suspect against self-incrimination whereas the 6th Amendment is all about speedy and fair trial. The two Amendments were designed to ensure fairness in treating individuals accused of a criminal offense but not really to protect them. The requirement for an attorney and the right to remain silent often protects an individual from uttering words that could implicate him or her in a criminal case. According to the 5th Amendment, an individual is allowed not to respond on a capital or infamous crime except when faced with certain situations. The 5th Amendment states that,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (Muhlenberg, 2010, para 9).
The 6th Amendment on the other hand stresses that an accused individual has the right to speedy and fair trial. The Amendment holds that,
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (Muhlenberg, 2010, para 10).
C. Miranda Rights.
The constitution provides for several rights on the part of the accused and the Miranda Rights is one such provision that safeguards the interests of the accused. Initially it was regarded that the accused knew their rights and that lack of knowledge of these rights was not the fault of the interrogating police. However, following the Supreme Court ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966, the police have the obligation of reciting the famous Miranda warning before interrogating the accused. The Miranda Rights recognize that the accused have the right to an attorney and also to remain silent (Mount, 2010).
Following the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court ruling, any accused individual is protected from custodial pressures and that the interrogating authorities have administer familiar warnings to the suspect. According to the Miranda Rights an individual,
Has the right to remain silent; that if that person gives up their right to remain silent, anything he or she says may be used against him or her in court; that the accused has a right to an attorney’s presence during interrogation; and that if that person cannot afford to pay an attorney, the court will appoint one (Colb, 2003, para 4).
The Miranda Rights were created so as to prevent the individuals from compelling themselves into self incrimination. Initially, the jurors had been faced with a difficult task of determining the state of the confessions as to whether they are voluntary or not. The Miranda relieves the jurors of this burden as well as providing greater control of custodial environment by the accused. Failure to adhere to the Miranda Rights by the interrogating authorities will lead to inadmissible evidence (Colb, 2003).
III. Training for Interrogations:
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) together with the American Medical Association (AMA) in 2006 issued statements calling for the prohibition of their members from participation in the interrogation of individuals by the military or any other authority. According to the APA, the presence of their members or giving suggestions on questions and offering advice to the interrogating authorities was not welcome. The AMA argued that the new role of physicians as interrogators undermined their mainstream role as healers. The two organizations however agreed that their members could only participate in training the interrogators but not in devising interrogations procedures for the accused (Marks, and Bloche, 2008).
Documents from the United States Army however indicate that the Department of Defense still holds that physicians should be involved in interrogations. The memo entitled ‘Behavioral Science Consultation Policy’, which was released in October of 2006, do not mention the APA stand on the matter and slightly acknowledges the AMA policy. The Army field manual of September 2006 shows some concerns regarding coercive interrogations but still encourages the use of some other techniques which are coercive. ‘Physical separation’ for instance is still being employed and that this has far reaching psychological implications that may result in post-traumatic stress. There is evidence that the training for interrogation involves psychiatric training which centers on behavioral science (Marks, and Bloche, 2008).
IV. Statistics:
A. Cases with Coerced Confessions:
There is increasing evidence that coerced confessions are becoming an increasing phenomenon in the United States judicial system. Several studies that have been carried out indicate that coerced confessions are on the rise. Within the last three decades six studies have indicated that more than two hundred and fifty interrogations have led to false confessions. In the year 1987, Hugo Bedau and Michael Radalet exposed forty nine incidences of coerced confessions that related to capital offenses. In the year 1998, Richard Ofshe identified sixty incidences that were resulting from coercive confessions in the period after 1966. A study by Barry Scheck and his associates in 2000 found out that there were sixty two incidences that involved wrongful convictions in the United States as from the 1990s. These findings and many others have continued to expose the American judicial system in bad light especially with regard to interrogation techniques (Leo, 2007).
B. Exonerated Cases:
The Innocence Project affirms that in the last three decades, there have been over 150 exonerations whereby coerced confessions account for roughly 24% (Owens, 2010). Sam Gross and his associates discovered that there were 340 official exonerations of people who had been wrongly convicted in the period from 1989 to 2003. Of these exonerations, 15% were from false confessions (Leo, 2007). These findings have put the psychological interrogation techniques being employed by the police in spotlight. The problem of false confessions seems to affect murder cases as the police come under pressure to resolve the crime affecting the society. This leaves the police officers with no option but to forcefully retrieve information from the suspects through induced confessions (Owens, 2010).
V. Police Interrogation Techniques:
A. Minimization and Maximization:
The Minimization and Maximization techniques are often employed by the police when conducting interrogation process. The maximization techniques are known to cause intimidation in the suspects through the overstatement of the seriousness of the charges. It may also involve exaggerations or false claims in regard to the evidence that is already with the interrogating authorities. In maximization, the suspects are duped to believe that they will be better off by cooperating or else they are going to be in greater danger if they fail to cooperate. On the other hand the minimization techniques involve suggestions of rationality in the criminal conduct. With this technique, the suspects are lulled to believe that the interrogator is sympathetic and that understands their predicament and is in a position to be of help (Campbell, 2005).
B. Coerced-Compliant and Coerced internalized:
When the confession amounts to an act of compliance even though the suspects are well aware of their innocence then this situation is referred to as coerced-compliant. The suspects often believe that by confessing, it will be of more benefit than not confessing. This is more often prompted by the exaggerations made by the interrogating officers regarding evidence available to them. With coerced internalized, suspects actually become convinced of their wrong doing and this usually occurs during anxiety as the suspects become overwhelmed by interrogation tactics being employed which is more often in a suggestive manner (Campbell, 2005).
C. The Reid Technique:
With the Reid technique of interrogation, the interrogation is divided into several stages in an attempt to provide a solution to the situation. The stages include the factual analysis stage which aids in determining the direction of the case; the interview stage which helps in getting information from suspects in a non-accusatory manner; and finally there is the accusatory interview incase the non-accusatory failed to yield reliable information (Jayne and Buckley, 2010).
VI. The Psychology of Confessions.
There is this feeling that confessions hold the greatest weight in influencing the decisions that are made by the judges. Upon being retracted, the judges are supposed to evaluate the circumstances under which such confessions were made and the techniques that were used in retracting the confessions. There is evidence that a confused and insecure suspect is likely to provide false confessions which should not be used in any court of law as evidence. Experiments shows that confessions can easily be coerced from naïve individuals as seen in an experiment done in 1996 where 100% of the subjects fell into false confessions with 2/3 believing that they were truly guilty (Campbell, 2005).
VII. Examples of Coerced Confessions:
There are numerous examples of how coerced confessions have been made one includes an incident where a mother was arrested after being questioned following the death of her severely handicapped child in a fire accident. The police employed the coercive psychological techniques into forcing the mother to make false confessions. Another example involved a step-father who was accused of sexually abusing her step-daughter. At first he denied the charges and later when he was picked by the police for interrogation, he admitted to the charges after being scared of the possibility to spend the rest of his life in prison. The police had employed the maximization technique in interrogation of the step-father which led to the coerced confession (Wakefield, and Underwager, 2010).
VIII. Admissibility in Court:
The court only considers confessions that have been made in a voluntary manner as reliable evidence. The admissibility of a confession is therefore to be found in the voluntariness of the confessions. The purpose for allowing only voluntary confessions as evidence is to block the possibility of using unreliable evidence in a court case. The Supreme Court has however kept the voluntary aspect unclear and indefinite and emphasizes on the comprehensive analysis of the pertinent issues surrounding the matter. Due to this vagueness, the courts might admit false confessions in the court process. However, in practice, judges usually exclude any coerced confessions that are blatant and obvious while admitting coerced confessions where the compulsion was understated and disguised (Wakefield, and Underwager, 2010).
IX. Conclusion:
Coerced confessions have brought in a big challenge to the judicial system not only to the United States but also to the world at large. The confessions hold great weight when presented in court as evidence but there is the need to emphasize on voluntary confessions. The provisions of the constitutions as provided by the 5th and 6th Amendments together with Miranda warnings have provided the suspects with some protection in regard to self-incrimination. It should however be observed that most of the psychological techniques being used in the interrogation are questionable as they more often than not lead to coerced confessions. Coerced confessions should not be admissible in a court of law under any circumstances.
Reference:
Berk-Seligson, S., (2009). Coerced confessions: the discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Campbell, T. W., Ph.D. (2005). Issues in Forensic Psychology: Coerced Confessions. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://www.campsych.com/cooerced.htm.
Colb, S. F., (2003). The Supreme Court ponders coerced confessions and the Fifth Amendment. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/02/findlaw.analysis.colb.fifth/.
Jayne, B. C. and Buckley, J. P., (2010). The Reid Technique of Interrogation. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://www.reid.com/educational_info/canada.html.
Leo, R. A. (2007). The Problem of False Confession in America. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/4a6e9aa597092057052573ed0056ffa3?OpenDocument
Marks, J. H., M.A., B.C.L., and Bloche, M. G., M.D., J.D. (2008). The Ethics of Interrogation — The U.S. Military’s Ongoing Use of Psychiatrists, The New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 359, No. 11, pp 1090-1092
Mount, S., (2010). The Miranda Warning. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html.
Muhlenberg, F. A., (2010). U.S. Constitution: Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10). Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://www.maitreg.com/politics/documents/billofrights.asp.
Owens, R., (2010). Coerced (False) Confession. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from; http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TF-gjbzntqMJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Coerced%2520False%2520Confessions.pdf+Coerced+Confessions&hl=en&gl=ke&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiQhOHNr89fBl0NB1aNBFL702GRf7qZHpmnAFX33NaCQaD_8p7nhqlH0znQYjo0DgtqU9oJKXWc8Ld7ad6iQtaWg96VgVYEcoei6qV574LpAe35FUE0rmRgd_f0-2DsPVxbxXff&sig=AHIEtbQt0d2Zr_-voGqf8Wb4To2c_WxCmg
Wakefield, H., M.A. and Underwager, R., Ph.D. (2010). Coerced or Non-voluntary Confessions. Retrieved on 21st May 2010 from;
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm.
