NCJ Number
99866
Date Published
1985
Length
28 pages
Annotation
A discussion of confession evidence considers its historical background, its reliability, and its impact on the jury.
Abstract
In England in the 16th and 17th centuries, all confessions were regarded as proof of guilt, and torture was commonly used to extract confessions. By the 19th century, the judiciary tended to distrust all confessions. Today, the admissibility of confession evidence is determined on an individual basis. The crucial requirement is that it be proved to be voluntary. However, determining voluntariness requires inferences about a defendant's state of mind and must rest on concerns for trustworthiness and due process. The physical setting of police interrogations and the manipulative tactics often used to elicit confessions have raised concerns about due process. Anecdotal literature indicates the possibility of three pschologically distinct types of confessions: voluntary confessions, confessions resulting from compliance with coercion, and confessions in which fatigue and pressures of the interrogation process lead suspects to believe in their own guilt (coerced-internalized). Psychological research relating to hypnosis and to self-perception may explain the phenomenon of false confessions. Juries place a great deal of faith in the probative value of confessions. Research has shown this to be true even when the confession is questionable, unless force was used or jury instructions are modified. Further psychological research should focus on accuracy, jury reactions, and the application of the psychology of confession evidence to other areas of the law. Notes and 80 references.