NCJ Number
224598
Journal
Criminal Justice and Behavior Volume: 35 Issue: 10 Dated: October 2008 Pages: 1309-1322
Date Published
October 2008
Length
14 pages
Annotation
The research reviewed in this article suggests that despite special training in how to conduct interviews, police are not more proficient than laypersons in determining whether suspects are lying or telling the truth.
Abstract
Based on research findings, this article challenges the prevalent myths that trained interviewers are skilled in detecting truth and deception in the statements of those interviewed; that “Miranda” protects the accused from interrogation; that people do not confess to crimes they did not commit; that false confessions can be clearly and easily distinguished from genuine confessions; and that it is possible for appellate courts to determine whether a confession error was harmless. There are two mechanisms courts can institute in order to overcome the myths that have corrupted confession evidence. One mechanism is a more active use of psychological science as a basis for expert testimony, amicus briefs, and other forms of consultation that report and interpret research on how false confessions are made by innocent people. A second mechanism involves ensuring that prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, and juries can observe the process by which confessions are produced. A mandatory videotaping of interviews and interrogations will enlighten prosecutors and defense attorneys about the tactics and dynamics of police interviews and interrogations. It will also increase the fact-finding accuracy of judges, who rule on the voluntariness of confessions after observing firsthand the suspect’s physical and mental state, the interrogation conditions, and the tactics that were used. Juries can also observe how the confession statements were taken and whether there was any coaching about the content of the confession. 93 references