
Why people confess to crimes they didn’t commit - SiempreViernes
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/psychologist-explains-why-people-confess-crimes-they-didn-t-commit
======
nhumrich
I've had a polygraph before while interviewing for a security clearance
position. The questions they asked were pretty standard such as "are you a
terrorist" and things. I could unequivocally answer the questions without a
thought. But my polygraph took a couple hours and after a while in that room,
being asked the same questions over and over, I honestly started to wonder if
I was, somehow, a terrorist and they knew it but I didn't.

~~~
noob_slayer
Do you think terrorists identify with that word?

~~~
beenBoutIT
No, not unless they're insane. It looks more like they deliberately worded it
to appeal to mentally retarded individuals suffering from persecutory
delusions and the like. 'Terrorist Foiled' sounds better than 'Delusional
Idiot Entrapped', especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.

~~~
wallace_f
You got a lot of downvotes, but the themes in your comment are, in fact,
eerily close to reality, even though a lot of people wouldn't believe it.

The Intercept has a long-running series documenting the Security State
prosecuting people for terrorism, who never were terorrists -- many are
mentally ill people given plots and weapons _by_ the FBI:
[https://theintercept.com/2017/09/03/the-fbi-pressured-a-
lone...](https://theintercept.com/2017/09/03/the-fbi-pressured-a-lonely-young-
man-into-a-bomb-plot-he-tried-to-back-out-now-hes-serving-life-in-prison/)

See the full series and list of stories here: [https://trial-and-
terror.theintercept.com/](https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/)

~~~
mrguyorama
The legal requirements for entrapment are quite forgiving

------
sickcodebruh
Years ago, my band was harassed aggressively by border crossing guards while
entering Canada. They insisted we had drugs with us and wanted us to confess.
We knew we had nothing. Separated from my friends, threatened with what would
happen when they found things, being told they were calling the dogs to search
the car, seeing them going through our stuff, I had moments where I wondered
if I had forgotten anything and if it might be better to confess just in case.

~~~
mbrameld
I had a nearly identical experience crossing into Canada back in 2012. It was
bizarre. They kept telling me they knew they were going to find someone in my
car, which made me think they might actually PUT something in my car to find.
Several hours later I was able to continue on into Canada after I repacked
everything they had spread out everywhere.

~~~
sickcodebruh
I’m sorry you went through that, too. Were you also traveling with a band?

We had similar tactics applied by Border Agents in Arizona just past the
California-Arizona state border last September. This time, I was driving and I
knew they were full of shit when they surrounded us, talked about bringing
dogs (they always threaten with dogs?), and claimed they smelled drugs in the
vehicle. It didn’t go on for as long, they didn’t make us get out or go
through our stuff, and copping to something we didn’t do didn’t enter my head,
but it felt too familiar.

The stakes in these situations were low, we knew this was par for the course
when crossing these borders and it was STILL stressful and frightening. I can
so easily see how people in more serious situations break when under more
intense pressure.

~~~
mbrameld
I wasn't traveling with a band, just my dog! I was moving from Florida to
Alaska, trying to catch the ferry out of Prince Rupert. Weather turned me
around in Banff and I went to plan B and drove back into the US to Bellingham
to catch the ferry there. Had no trouble at all crossing back into the US at
the same crossing. My dog ended up with a gastric dilatation-volvulus the
night before I got on the ferry and had to be euthanized. Not the best trip
but living in Alaska was amazing.

------
vinceguidry
I couldn't read the article in-depth, it's too depressing. What makes it
depressing is that it ultimately resolves to income inequality, which in
America is only really a problem because of racism. So everywhere you look
there's a travesty of justice with no escape other than total upending of
society, i.e. telling everyone to not be racist.

False confessions wouldn't be a problem if there were a true presumption of
innocence. Our justice system doesn't presume innocence in areas where
caseloads are high, it takes shortcuts. When people take shortcuts, the costs
of that externalization fall the hardest on those with the fewest resources to
defend themselves. You're way less inclined to think charitably about someone
who looks like all the other people you lock up every single day.

With these as the table stakes, that this kind of article is even needed, that
if you lock an emotionally-vulnerable person in a room and yell at them for
hours, eventually they're going to crack, is just more depressing.

If you want a concrete vision of Hell, real Hell, you can't get a more
compelling one than that of how America treats its underclass.

~~~
50656E6973
>ultimately resolves to income inequality, which in America is only really a
problem because of racism.

Income inequality is not restricted to minorities.

There are more white people living in poverty/prison than any other racial
group.

~~~
vinceguidry
Then let's talk privilege. America's underclass is created not just by income
inequality, but also by the collective belief by those not in the underclass
that the underclass is worthless. If this were not the case, then they
wouldn't continually create policies to keep them down.

~~~
50656E6973
Indeed, Dr. King realized in his final years that to truly solve racism, we
must resolve classism and extreme materialism.

~~~
iamnothere
MLK's national "Poor People's Campaign" had tangible goals for this as well:

* $30 billion annual appropriation for a real war on poverty

* Congressional passage of full employment and guaranteed income legislation [a guaranteed annual wage]

* Construction of 500,000 low-cost housing units per year until slums were eliminated

(From here:
[https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/history/](https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/history/))

Some updated variation on this would still make a big impact if implemented
today.

~~~
gobley
Andrew Yang 2020 has policies that are inspired by what MLK promoted. The
$1000 monthly "freedom dividend" will definitely be a game changer for poor
minorities.

~~~
50656E6973
>will definitely be a game changer for poor minorities.

What about poor people in general, regardless of skin color?

------
_drimzy
Given that people who know the law, can plead the fifth and avoid being
interrogated at all, why doesn't the law just ban interrogation of the accused
altogether? It creates a divide between people who have access to good lawyers
vs those who don't and fall prey to such coercion.

~~~
lostmyoldone
Swedish criminal law implement something that could be considered a partial
application of that idea, but instead of outlawing interrogation, any
admission of guilt is only to be considered as part of evidence in a case.

Thus when the courts do their work correctly, it's almost impossible to be
convicted on your admissions alone, especially for more serious crimes.

There are however instances where this has still happened, indicating that
maybe confeso of guilt should not be admissible as evidence at all, though
material evidence found through interrogation probably should.

~~~
soulofmischief
Have there been any cases of someone being exonerated for lack of evidence
despite pleading to be arrested for their bloody cannibalistic rape spree?

~~~
Pinus
Since Sweden has already been mentioned in this subthread... The case of Sture
Bergwall / Thomas Quick comes quite close.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall)

------
sysbin
I'm guessing mental abuse of being accused and repetitively in a room for
hours. The constant demand upon a person to confess with no end in sight for
the person. The experience being unique by the variables of the alleged crime
and with whoever is hired to question play into the equation. I think the best
situation for an accused person is refusing to talk and until an attorney
tells them what to say. Since, mentally I doubt my health (at my best state)
could even take anything else in a situation of such importance.

~~~
Ntrails
> I think the best situation for an accused person is refusing to talk [to the
> police]

Simple advice, and easy to follow. Even if you are innocent, understand the
police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you. Do Not Help
Them.

~~~
DanBC
> police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you

...in the US.

If you're in England and you didn't do it then it's normally a good idea to
clear things up. You can have a solicitor with you. Of course, if you've been
arrested then you should make use of the solicitor and follow their advice -
which will usually be "explain what happened and where you were at the time",
unless you did in fact do it where their advice might be "explain in these
terms what happened", or "just say 'no comment' to every question".

~~~
hannasanarion
Police in the UK have the same goals as police in the US, it's just that
American police are often more aggressive about it. American lawyers will
often give that same advice, tell your story to clear things up so that you
can go home.

It's still generally smarter to wait until you have the advice from the lawyer
before you start yapping though.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
They do retain their principles of policing by consent. They are a citizen in
uniform rather than a force in opposition to the citizens. It does generally
change the attitude in nearly all dealings.

UK police can't lie to suspects in interview or bring out some false evidence
to encourage you to confess, and interviews have to be fully recorded. Yes, of
course there have been some that break the rules.

------
ummonk
The ancient Artha Shastra had an interesting take on this. Thanks to its time
period, it advocated torturing suspects during interrogations (of limited
duration). However, due to the near certainty of false confessions in such an
interrogation, it instructed the interrogator to attempt to obtain knowledge
through the torture that only the guilty could have, such as the location of
stolen property or murder weapons.

~~~
maxxxxx
I have read that good interrogators will do that without torture. They will
check the information they are getting against facts that can be checked. From
what I have read about innocent people that got convicted most of these
convictions relied on “evidence” where nobody made the effort to sanity check
the information and see if it really makes sense.

~~~
simonh
Also check for the consistency of the person's story. Lying is stressful and
you have to remember details you have invented and that don't match your own
memory. This is difficult to keep straight, especially over an extended
period.

~~~
itronitron
Memory is malleable and false memories can be created in people's minds even
when they know it is happening. If the police are showing pictures and telling
a narrative then that will eventually be adopted as the person's memory.

~~~
barrkel
That's exactly right and I don't know why people would downvote it unless
they've never had it happen to them.

I remember having a quite nasty accident as a kid, but actually it happened to
my friend, and I only found out many years later when recounting it.

I've had some similar episodes while drunk, but not as extreme as that one.

~~~
sharkweek
I have a memory as a young kid watching a spaceship launch in person. I even
told my first grade class about it during show and tell time or something. I
remember this because the teacher corrected me, suggesting maybe I watched
something on TV (probably true).

I live in the PNW and have never been near a spaceship launch but to this day
it feels kind of like a real memory.

It seems that over time it’s pretty easy to write false memories into our real
memories.

------
jellicle
Wrongly confess: you'll be released today, albeit with a criminal conviction
and a fine.

Maintain innocence: spend the next 3-18 months in jail, then have a trial
without effective counsel, probably lose, be sentenced to time served and a
fine. You'll have lost your job, your kids will be in foster care, and your
family will have been evicted.

It's not complicated. (For more serious crimes, the police still generally
promise "you'll be released today", they just don't deliver on that promise.
"Just tell us what happened and we can put all this behind us, we just have a
few questions." So even though the accused is facing serious punishment for
wrongly confessing, the decision still appears similar to the above.)

~~~
abofh
It also helps to remember, the police are not there to find the truth or find
your innocence.

Their job is to gather evidence sufficient for the DA to charge you and
convict you. Once you've been arrested or detained, you're not talking your
way out of it, you're just giving them information to pass on to the DA.

~~~
jopsen
In other countries the police is tasked with doing an impartial investigation.

They not allowed to lie, or even interrupt an explanation to attempt to tweak
the wording.

Using American tactics in other countries could get a police officer fired or
worse.

------
rolltiide
> Judge Steven Barrett of the Bronx Supreme Court vacated Burton's 3-decade-
> old conviction, citing such work as the basis of his decision.

This worked in a subdivision of a single city, but may never work in rural
Wisconsin or the other 30,000+ municipalities in this country which operate
under 55 sovereign districts with completely different legal hierarchies.

We don't even have total transparency about who is even in most of these
municipal prisons and under what circumstances.

The work in New York City - "the center of the free world" \- is probably the
most advanced, and the world's news organizations have barely scratched the
surface about whats going on in Riker's Islands and its other prisons.

How can we really address this?

------
maxheadroom
> _More than a quarter of the 365 people exonerated in recent decades by the
> nonprofit Innocence Project had confessed to their alleged crime._

Using guessimation, x would be the numer of people that confessed that were
innocent, so 91.25 < x < 182.5, and that, alone, was the principally driving
force (assumptive, I'm aware) to convict them - and these are the numbers that
we're _aware_ of because of the overturned convictions.

Whilst I can understand the reprieve it must give police and the district
attorneys in the efforts of building a case, it almost seems as if they just
kind of give up applying any further scrutiny, once any confession is had -
whether the person _actually_ committed the crime or not.

I'm not sure why this breakdown, for lack of a better vernacular at present,
occurs though.

Is it antipathy? Is it because numbers are more important than anything else
(e.g.: for elected positions such as Sheriffs)? Is it because we ply the path
of least of resistance to the investigating demeanor?

I'm sure a lot of the convictions in the past are biased for varying other
degrees but this seems to infer that even _without_ those other degrees of
influence, we have a high margin of error for putting innocent people away.

Add those varying degrees referenced above into the equation and I'm not so
sure that the deflection, " _It 's not a perfect system but it works,_" is
really applicable, anymore.

~~~
stevenwoo
Serial's third season podcast series covered this a bit, since the 1980's or
so in the USA, we've decreased funding for the judicial system, and not
increased prosecutors funding and staff to commensurate with increased crimes
due to larger population (if crime rate stayed the same or even decreased.)
This puts a lot of pressure on prosecutors to get plea bargains, the logical
gaming of the system by prosecutors is to layer on as many of the hardest
charges possible, then offer a plea bargain that has a fraction of the penalty
of the initial charges. We do not have enough courthouses to actually let
every defendent get judged by a jury of their peers. Even if one is innocent,
rational people will choose to plea guilty given that prosecutors have
something like a 95% conviction rate in the USA and all the resources of their
local/state/federal government behind the prosecution. Someone facetiously but
based on my viewing of The Wire and The Shield, large city police departments
are judged on finding someone to charge with reported crimes and having a lot
of open unsolved crimes is seen as a terrible statistic, there's no extra
reward in finding the actual person who did each crime so some might find a
perverse incentive to clear crimes no matter what.

------
whack
One factor worth considering from the study the article references, which it
really should have acknowledged. Tactics such as minimization, are extremely
effective in increasing the rate of true-confessions as well, which
significantly outnumber the number of false-confessions.

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7798075_Investigati...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7798075_Investigating_True_and_False_Confessions_Within_a_Novel_Experimental_Paradigm)

" _Results indicated that guilty persons were more likely to confess than
innocent persons, and that the use of minimization and the offer of a deal
increased the rate of both true and false confessions_ "

 _Condition, True confessions, False confessions

No tactic 46% 6%

Minimization 81% 18%_

~~~
F_r_k
I'm not sure I prefer to have more true confessions of that implies more wrong
confessions (even if one might outweigh the other)..

~~~
hammock
If you look at the stats, the ratios are getting worse

------
08-15
> John Kogut, a Long Island man who after an 18-hour interrogation falsely
> confessed

How is this not considered torture? How is the confession of a sleep deprived
and hence mentally impaired man even valid? Why are the feral cops who
interrogated him not in jail for crimes against humanity?

On the other hand, why don't they go a step further? Sharp tools, electricity,
hallucinogenic drugs, etc. would go a long way towards getting a confession
sooner.

~~~
pravda
In that specific case, the police did not consider the confession by itself to
be enough to falsely convict Mr Kogut and his two friends.

So the police took a hair from the victim, put it in an evidence bag, and
testified under oath that the hair had been found in the defendants' van.

It looks like the innocent men were released in 2003, and have had to wait 15+
years for compensation.

[https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/fusco-restivo-
hal...](https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/fusco-restivo-halstead-
death-1.16018032)

But hey, it shows that the criminal justice system works!

------
michelpp
Perhaps one of the best videos on YouTube "Don't talk to the Police":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

------
Tsubasachan
Its really unfortunate. Your lawyer will tell you not to take the polygraph.
Your lawyer will tell you not to sign a damn thing. Your lawyer will tell you
to STFU. Your lawyer will tell you about all the little mindgames and
brainwashing that you are going to experience.

But if you're poor you don't have a lawyer to save you from the bad people.
And its not in the government interest to provide you with one.

~~~
ajscanlan
Can you not be provided a lawyer even if you're poor? I thought that was a
right.

~~~
twoquestions
You have a lawyer you meet at trial and don't get privacy with, and that's
provided they're not incentivized (with money or otherwise) to deliberately
fail to defend you.

~~~
justanotherjoe
I just don't think people that went through years of education are still
capable of doing something like that. People are motivated by more than just
money...

~~~
mrguyorama
It's not malice. In some places (I believe my state is one), even normal
lawyers are required to periodically serve as a public defender. These
defenders are just handed cases and required to handle them, period. Now what
if it should take you a whole week to go through the facts of the case to
properly defend the accused, but it turns out the court handed you about 10
cases that week, and they all have the same issue?

------
kazinator
Though sometimes people confess due to interrogation pressure tactics, there
is still this phenomenon that the article doesn't touch on: attention-seekers
who voluntarily call in and turn themselves in, claiming to be the perpetrator
of some widely publicized crime, like a serial killing or whatever.

~~~
Steve44
There is a fair amount of press in the UK at the moment related to a
Westminster VIP paedophile ring where it looks like the "victim", a Carl
Beech, may have been making it up.

------
blizkreeg
In India, confessions in lock-up or to the police are not admissible in court
in a criminal proceeding. I've always found that as the way to prevent
innocent people from being convicted based on their confession.

------
hvo
Well, I am not surprised at all. In US police,not all of them, often lie under
oath.It is called ‘Testilying.’[0]

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/nyregion/police-lying-
new...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/nyregion/police-lying-new-
york.html?searchResultPosition=5)

------
grahamburger
American Vandal (Netflix original) season 2 deals with this theme and is
pretty amazing all around!

------
apatheticonion
Scene from the Wire relating to lie detector machines
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN7pkFNEg5c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN7pkFNEg5c)

------
pmfgpmfg
"under US law, police are allowed to lie"

in consideration of this fact, anyone taken into US police custody, for any
reason, ever, should refuse to open their mouth, or help police in any way.

~~~
jopsen
The sad thing is that if your neighbor was burgled and the police comes
knocking on your door to ask questions, you also have an interest in getting
the culprit caught.

Yet, you can't trust the police to not entrap you.

