This is a guest post composed at the NSF Science: Becoming the Messenger Workshop at University of Nebraska-Lincoln by Krista Forrest, Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Kearney.
Seventeen year old Marty Tankleff awoke to find his mother dead and his father dying. He called the police as a good son would. When the police arrived they noticed that Marty was behaving strangely. As a result, he immediately became a suspect. After several hours of interrogation, Marty confessed to the crime because of police deception. The officer told Marty his father had come out of the coma and said that he, Marty had committed the crime. Then his father died. The truth- his father never woke up and Marty served 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit (read more about Marty’s case here).
False confessions exist and more frequently than you think. Low intelligence, mental illness and torture are not the only factors contributing to false confessions. According to the Innocence Project, 25% of DNA exonerated individuals who were wrongly convicted made a false confession or admission.
Under the right conditions even you could falsely confess to a crime.
As in the case of Marty Tankleff police are allowed to lie about the presence of eyewitness, snitch, and scientific evidence. Those same officers can give you a polygraph and tell you the outcome is failure, even when you didn’t. Judges, prosecutors, and police officers don’t seem to be concerned about deceptive techniques, citing legal cases as supportive of the technique. Yet more expert witnesses are being allowed to educate juries on the subtle, deceptive and coercive nature of police interrogation.
According to research, lying about evidence increases a suspect’s likelihood of falsely confessing. This effect is even stronger for the innocent, who may confess with the expectation that once this evidence is tested, they will be freed. Unfortunately they don’t know that a confession is all the court needs.
Protect yourself from deceptive police interrogation. Always get a lawyer.
March 9th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
If anything, this understates the lengths the police are allowed to go to in order to get evidence or a confession. Don’t just get a lawyer, refuse to anwer any questions they ask. The only thing that is accurate from TV and movies is “Anything you say can and will be used against you.” ANYTHING!
March 10th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
First, be very careful about extrapolating one story into too large of a belief. Secondly, the Innocence Project exoneration cases all occurred 15-25 years ago. Practices and case law have changed a great deal, leading to education of police interviewers on mental health and other issues, instituting laws that interviews have to be audio or video taped, and other modern changes.
I don’t know where Scott gains his experience with “anything” being used against a person, however it is not true. If you watch or listen to interviews and talk with police detectives, they frequently believe what people tell them AND search for corroboration and alibis that validate statements. Most police and criminal justice professionals really do want to avoid error, and certainly do not want to leave an harmful person free to continue harming.
March 10th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
@Karen:
My experience is based on my small (thankfully) experience with the system plus that of people I know, my conversations with professionals who work in the system, reading court documents for various cases. And of course there are still plenty of news reports that, even accounting for media sensationalism and their tendency to sometimes report before they get the story straight, clearly show that there are still plenty of cases where people in the legal system behave unethically, if not downright illegally.
I would agree that most people in the legal system do conduct themselves properly. Most is not all and I don’t believe it is almost all either. It is too easy for innocent people to get caught up in the legal system and even if they end up completely exonerated, the cost in time and money can be very high.
Every one of us has every right to make use of the legal protections the system offers, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
March 11th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Yes, the Tankleff story as well as others are older. But many of the individuals who are still in prison, waiting for their chance at exoneration, are there because of techniques interrogators CONTINUE to use today. Lying about evidence is just one of these techniques. Case law supports the use of police deception as long as physical materials created as part of the ruse CANNOT be misperceived as real evidence in appeal.
There is also research to suggest that police officers are NOT successful at recognizing suspects who have mental illnesses or developmental delays. Although continuing education exists (I have been a trainer myself) there needs to be more.
Video and audiotapes have assisted the judicial system a great deal. No longer is a “he said-he said” situation part of the case. However interviews are not usually taped and interrogators have more flexibility during that part of the questioning process. Researchers have also indicated that taping alone is not enough. You have to consider camera angle, volume, whether the tape will stop and start at “strategic” moments, etc. Video taping is the best change to happen to police interrogation in years. However, video taping alone is not the only answer
I never suggested we set a harmful person free. But we need to recognize that arresting and convicting the wrong person for the crime does set the harmful person free.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:10 am
[...] certainly are some honorable mentions. Krista Forrest’s “Lie to Me, Lie To You: Educating the Public About Police Deception,” was fascinating and drew eyeballs through its title [...]
March 14th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
[...] Read the full article. [...]
March 15th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Unfortuantely the safest thing to teach your children if they are picked up by the police is to only say “I want my Mom, I want my dad, I want a Lawyer”.
March 16th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
[...] giving some stats and some reasons why false confessions are not really that odd of an occurrence. Read more… This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Texas Bill Makes [...]