Interviewing and interrogating suspects are foundational skills in policing. When an officer obtains a confession of guilt from a suspect, it not only solidifies the officer’s belief in the suspect’s guilt, but also shapes the entire trajectory of the case. As a result, prosecutors are more likely to feel assured of the suspect’s guiltiness and are more inclined to bring the case to trial. This is understandable, as the suspect has already admitted responsibility through their own words. If the case proceeds to trial, the confession often takes center stage, diminishing the importance of other elements of the trial. Research indicates that jurors are more likely to convict based on a suspect’s confession than any other factor. In summary, if a suspect confesses to committing a crime, people will believe them. 

False confessions happen

However, it’s important to acknowledge that sometimes individuals confess to crimes they did not commit. While it may seem strange and counterintuitive, it unfortunately does happen. This article will explore some common reasons why suspects give false confessions and how police can identify possible false confessions.

Psychology of false confessions

Ultimately, if a suspect believes that confessing is in their best interest, even when innocent, they may end up admitting to a crime they did not commit. How could this happen? Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A person is accused of a serious crime, such as felony assault. The officer interrogating the suspect minimizes the crime, suggesting it was a minor issue and likely justified given the circumstances. The officer might say phrases like “I would probably do the same thing as you in this situation.” Perhaps the officer communicates, directly or indirectly, that the suspect’s actions are understandable and justified. This messaging implies that the officer views the crime as a small issue. Keep in mind, the officer is perceived as an expert in the law who deals with similar situations regularly. Thus, it seems logical that if the suspect believes the officer’s narrative — that this crime isn’t a big deal and is justified — they might just say what they think the officer wants to hear in order to escape the stressful environment. It could be argued that suspects may make a reasonable and logical decision to lie to just move on from the matter. However, the reality is different. After a confession, even a false one, the suspect cannot move on from the incident and will likely be charged and convicted regardless of innocence.

Lying about evidence to the suspect

The most common way innocent people confess to crimes they didn’t commit is when officers lie about evidence. Are police allowed to lie to suspects to obtain a confession? The answer is yes; in most jurisdictions, police are allowed to lie to suspects, and the courts have affirmed this as legal. Nevertheless, just because a practice such as lying is legal doesn’t mean it should be utilized in most situations. For example, consider an officer with a suspect in the interrogation room. The officer might walk in and throw a folder on the table in front of the suspect, labeled “EVIDENCE” in bright red letters. The officer then points to the file and claims they have a DNA match, or the suspect’s hair at the crime scene, or the suspect’s fingerprints matched, when in fact the police don’t have any of this evidence. In this situation, a suspect could start to believe the officer’s narrative more than their own. Notably, suspects, like all people, can be influenced by manipulation. In fact, research indicates that when you lie to people about reality, you can actually change their view of the truth.

The statement “Lie enough, and often enough, and it will be believed” reflects a concept known as the “illusory truth effect.” This psychological phenomenon suggests that repeated exposure to a false statement can lead people to believe it. While the extent to which people are susceptible to this varies widely, officers should, at a minimum, be aware of it so they can recognize when it may be occurring.

Stressful interrogations

The documentary Officer Involved explores the experiences of officers in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting. Interestingly, even an officer featured in the film, when under high stress during an interrogation by a detective after the shooting, claimed that he falsely admitted to something that did not happen. Importantly, if a trained officer accustomed to stressful situations and confrontations can be manipulated into a false confession, then how much more vulnerable are other population groups? If being stopped by the police for a traffic stop can be stressful for people, how much more so is a police interrogation? This is something to consider.

Vulnerable people and personalities

Most of us know people who do not like conflict at all. They hate conflict and wish everyone would just get along. In fact, there is a large part of the population who prioritize agreement and cooperation and aim to avoid conflict. If these people are pushed too hard, they are at greater risk of falsely confessing because they hate confrontation so much.  

Moreover, if the suspect is a child or teenager, they are especially vulnerable to aggressive interrogation techniques because their brains are still developing and are prone to making impulsive decisions. As such, many jurisdictions have special rules related to the interrogation of juveniles. In addition, people with mental health issues or cognitive impairments are more likely to misunderstand the situation and also falsely confess to a crime they did not commit. Likewise, if a suspect is extremely fatigued or has been interviewed for long periods, these individuals are at greater risk of false confessions.

Questionable tactics

It should go without saying that using questionable tactics, such as threats of harm, physical abuse, promises of leniency, exhaustingly long interrogations, feeding suspects crime facts and denial of rights, is not appropriate and may lead to false confessions. However, from my experience these tactics are rarely utilized in modern policing.

Conclusion

In sum, before deciding on interrogation tactics to use on a suspect, an officer should get a baseline for risk factors that could lead to false confessions. Also, officers should be diligent in collecting evidence and corroborating the suspect’s confession, rather than stopping as soon as the confession is obtained. Likewise, interrogations should always be videorecorded from start to finish. This is key so that if issues arise later, the video can be analyzed and reviewed to determine the likelihood of a false confession occurring. In sum, false confessions are not common, but officers should be aware they can happen without the use of best practices.