Authors: Deepanker Singhal & Pragya Narang

INTRODUCTION

A foundational premise of criminal justice is that the best evidence is a confession. The problem, however, is that both history and psychology remind us that innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit. False confessions put into question the validity of convictions, undermine procedural justice, and reveal systematic issues in the criminal justice system. In working through the study of false confessions, law students, lawyers, and professors engage in the intricate interplay of law, psychology, and procedure. 

UNDERSTANDING FALSE CONFESSIONS

A confession is false when an innocent person confesses to a crime that they did not commit, typically through coercion, misunderstanding or some psychological pressure or impetus. False confessions are not a rare occurrence. False confessions are one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. For example, The Innocence Project, which, via DNA testing, has exonerated over 375 innocent people wrongfully convicted in the United States, reported that nearly 29% of these wrongful convictions were based upon false confessions.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS BEHIND FALSE CONFESSIONS

Primarily, there are three major forms of false confessions: voluntary, compliant, and internalized.

1. Voluntary false confession: The defendant identifies a different motivation, such as attraction to the attention, wish to protect another person, or mental illness, etc.
2. Compliant false confession: The defendant identifies complying with the confession due to external time constraints, coercive police interrogation strategies, fatigue, or fear of more serious punishment(s).
3. Internalized false confession: The suspect may be wrongfully convinced they have committed the crime due to suggestive questioning, fatigue, or memory distortion.

Psychological vulnerabilities, particularly in youth, intellectual limitations, and mental illness, all increase the likelihood of accepting external pressures to comply with these conditions. According to the research of Gudjonsson’s Suggestibility Scale, in the cases of false confessions, the individuals with high suggestibility were found to be represented disproportionately.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK: INDIA AND COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS

In India, the evidentiary value of confessions is based on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sections 24–27 of the Act focus on the admissibility of confessions in court and emphasize their voluntary nature. Section 25 makes confessions to police officers inadmissible as evidence in court because of the risk of coercion, while “discovery statements” will remain admissible under Section 27. The issue of admissibility with “discovery statement” provides potential loopholes for police coercion without being prosecuted for it. 

Conversely, in the U.S., the requirements of Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) included a clear obligation to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and to have legal counsel. Even with Miranda protections, police reliance on and use of false confessions is concerning. The effectiveness of Miranda and its sufficient safeguards against psychological coercion is questionable. 

The United Kingdom also has protections and safeguards against false confessions. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also follows demonstrable practices of police interrogations that ultimately lead to reduced false confessions. Requiring that a legal counsel be present and interrogations to be electronically recorded, followed by a written statement with proper signatures, is a formal police process so that it does not undermine the legitimacy or truthfulness of the confession; rather, it protects the legal rights of the accused. Studies show that these procedures and policies reduce false confessions as compared to cases without greater protections.

CASE STUDIES OF FALSE CONFESSIONS

There are several popular cases that exhibit the significant danger of false confessions:

• The Central Park Five (United States): Five teenage boys falsely confessed to assault and rape in Central Park, New York, in 1989, after an aggressive police interrogation. They were later exonerated when the actual perpetrator confessed and DNA evidence confirmed the confession.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram: The accused was convicted for the murder of his wife and children based on a confession. The Supreme Court of India later held the confession as a result of force or coercion and acquitted him. The Court made the point that a confession must be made voluntarily and truthfully.
• Birmingham Six Case (United Kingdom): Six Irish men falsely confessed under duress to bombings in Birmingham in the 1970s. Their convictions were eventually dismissed after evidence of police misconduct came to light.

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND REFORMS

Legal systems should incorporate psychological principles and practices to avoid false confessions in the following ways: 

1. Use Videotaped Interrogations: Recordings capture everything and help avoid selective reporting, thus adding a layer of accountability and accuracy. 
2. Provide Access to Counsel: Having counsel will reduce the likelihood of being pressured or coerced.
3. Add Time Limits: The longer and longer someone is interviewed, the more tired, frustrated, and vulnerable they become to coercive persuasion. Time limits on questioning are essential. 
4. Grant Fingerprint and Lock-in Evidence Special Protection: Vulnerable populations, like juveniles and mentally ill suspects, are at risk of coercive persuasion and, as a result, should have protections in place for the purposes of interrogation.
5. Courts Must Scrutinize Voluntariness of Confessions: Courts need to be vigilant when considering confessions as evidence, and scrutinize the other corroborating evidence to determine whether a confession was truly voluntary rather than simply another form of evidence or “proof.”

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL-LEGAL NEXUS

Psychological research has proven the efficacy of particular interrogation techniques. The “Reid Technique” that is used in the U.S. confronts suspects with false evidence and promise of leniency, and such techniques disproportionately induce false confessions, especially among juveniles. Some models, like the PEACE model of the U.K., emphasize evidence gathering and demonstrate lower false confession rates and higher reliability for evidence.

CONCLUSION

False confessions represent an obvious blind spot in the criminal justice system at the intersection of law and psychology. They demonstrate in ways that should be clearer to all, that confessions, long safely and rightly considered the “queen of evidence”, can be terribly misleading. For a country like India, with perhaps fewer safeguards than many others, models that compare to interrogational practice, like statutory recording of interrogations, limiting police discretion, and greater judicial oversight, could lead to a significant reduction in wrongful convictions. For scholars and practitioners of law, the challenge of not just a critique of practice, but tireless advocacy towards social and systemic change that recognizes the reality of psychology and the safeguards embedded in constitutional practice can seem daunting. It is an increasingly sobering reality that studying false confessions demonstrates that being innocent cannot protect someone from a conviction. Legal justice systems will only be able to understand how to protect the truly innocent from wrongful convictions through an understanding of, and incorporation of, psychological practices into their legal procedure.