Confessing to Crimes

Over the past decade, knowledge on false confessions has grown tremendously. Using a variety of methods, scholars have identified several situational and dispositional risk factors that increase the likelihood of individuals taking the blame for crimes they did not commit, including mental impairment (severe mental illness or mental retardation).  However, a similar knowledge base on true confessions has not grown as much. In recent study published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, independent, self-reported true and false confession experiences of persons with serious mental illness were compared. In addition to examining the crimes and police questioning that led to the true or false confession, researchers investigated the reasons behind the confessions and the eventual case outcomes. Results showed that, in comparison to true confessors (n = 30), false confessors (n = 35) were questioned more times, took longer to confess, perceived the evidence against them to be weaker, and reported significantly more external pressure and less internal pressure. Moreover, of those participants who were convicted, false confessors were four times more likely to receive a prison sentence than true confessors.

For the abstract.

Comments

[Mary Scott]

False confession is being offered by individuals (who truly committed the crime) to someone, who is being paid and not actually the criminal, for these individuals to have an easy escape from the crime made. It is true that there are more false confessors received a prison sentence and convicted than true confessors. Lawyers should make an effort to know the truth and should thoroughly examine the case for them to prove that the one confesses is the one who made the crime.