The New York Times has an interesting article today about false confessions. It's recommended reading.
I know it's not quite a habeas-related article, but close enough for a quick link.
False confessions are really one of the hardest things for people to wrap their minds around in the wrongful conviction sphere. Confessions are supposed to give everybody the comfort that the right person was arrested and convicted. But it's clear that false confession is a real phenomenon -- usually as a result of an intentionally or, often times, unintentionally suggestive interrogation. As the freed defendant in the article stated, the person getting interrogated will say what needs to be said to end the interrogation, which will include telling the police what they believe the police want to hear. And this often occurs when the person getting interrogated is "'mentally disabled.'"
But the biggest problem is how to identify a false confession? We know that there have been false confessions as a result of DNA tests. But that's post-conviction, long after the wrong person has been convicted of the crime. How can we catch it earlier than that to avoid the wrongful conviction and get the police to realize that the actual perpetrator is still on the loose?
Advocates push for videotaping of interrogations. Some states require this (at least some interrogations). New York is currently not one of them. In my mind, this seems like a pretty painless way to try and prevent false confessions. The only thing that goes through my mind is that I have worked on cases where the interrogation lasted for something like 12 to 16 hours. Maybe even longer than that. That's like watching a full season of The Wire. I love watching TV, but that's A LOT of TV.
Comments