Why do innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit?

Just because someone confesses to a crime, it doesn't necessarily mean they actually did it -- that's the upshot of a new study from a University of Virginia law professor, who's researched several cases where a person confessed, did time ... and was eventually exonerated, the New York Times reports.

How does this happen? Well, the study blames "contamination" -- where police either intentionally or accidentally introduce details about the crime during interrogation. So, when the suspect "confesses," their story is more convincing because they can repeat details they've already heard.

Here's the paragraph that jumped out at me:

Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett’s study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway.

The Times story mentions the case of Eddie Lowery, who was convicted in Riley County. He wasn't cleared until after he served his time. He got $7.5 million in a settlement. He now lives in the Kansas City area.

Comments

[chalveyob]

What a complete load of crap. If you confess to a crime you didn't comit you should be in jail for being a complete moron!

[Vibiana]

Okay, I've never told you guys this, but I am the one who shot Joseph Smith. LOL

[Jellybean]

There is a LOT that goes into this. I happen to know quite a bit about the subject. Many times the accused enters a dissociative state and thats why they begin confessing.
Investigators need to be very careful not to feed a suspect any details of a crime so that the confession can be compared to the known evidence.
If they don't, Chalveyob, the investigators should be jailed for being complete morons. This is their field of expertise - they should be aware of the phenomenon. Their ignorance allows dangerous criminals to go free while innnocent men are incarcerated.

[Jellybean]

For instance - there's no way on earth that Chuck Erickson murdered Kent Heitholt. But, Chuck thinks he did.

[Mike]

Why??? Because they get harassed, intimidated and brutalized (without a lawyer!) by high-school drop out "cops"!

[Jellybean]

If you get a chance, watch the video on the FreeRyanFerguson.com website in which Detective Short questions Erickson about how Heitholt was strangled.
Erickson has no clue.
Hands? His shirt? A bungee cord?
The detective TELLS him that Heitholt was strangled with his own belt. By the time they got to court, Erickson had a very clear "memory" of that. His "memory" is nothing but the picture in his head - put there by Detective Short. It has no basis in reality.

[Tom K]

It gets to be a little obvious that they do this on purpose. Not all investigator's have Kyra Sedgwick's integrity.

[Tam]

and JB, it's not just innocent men that are incarcerated...

[Jellybean]

? Of course I know that, Tam. But, I don't waste my time with the guilty ones. You won't see me at a candlelight vigil over the execution of some psycho. But, you will find me pouring over caselaw as a volunteer in assisting those I believe to be falsely accused and/or convicted.
I don't just post goofy comments on Crime blogs. I actually devote my time and energy to this cause and I'm quite knowledgable about it.

[Kevin]

Well you have the guy that confessed to killing that little girl in Colorado, and they flew him back from Asis just to find out he really didn't do it.

I guess people want their 15 minutes of fame one way or another.

[Anarchanon]

the prosecutors/investigators bully a confession out of them; they, in fear of worse, confess.

It's why they don't want the tapes of interrogations released. It'd become obvious just how filthy dirty prosecutions actually are.

[Jellybean]

I think those are an entirely different story though, Kevin. That's more like Henry Lee Lucas and other sociopath weirdos who confess just to screw with people and the police.

But, John Mark Karr truly believed that he had killed Jon Benet Ramsey. Only, he didn't. Paul Ingram came to believe that he was a monster who didn't know his own mind. Peter Riley became convinced that he'd killed his own mother.
It happens. Investigators need to learn how to recognize it and safeguard against it. Their interrogation techniques are often to blame.

[Mickey Mouse]

"Why do innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit?"

Well let's see. No job, lost home, no food, can't buy clothes, very hot/cold outside. Gee, I'll just confess and I'll get free room, food, clothes, and a place to stay charged directly to the taxpayers....sounds good to me. If I lost everything, that's what'll I'll probably do...

[Keith G. in P.V.]

Vibiana, I shot Liberty Valance. So there!

[Jellybean]

Sometimes it's bullying, Anarchanon. But sometimes it's just well-meaning ignorance. There is a segment of the population(and it's NOT linked to intelligence) fall into a range of extremely high hypnotizability. They become easily disocciative and thus suggestible. If told to envision how something may have happened - or worse - that it is likely that it happened - they experience visions which become like memories. Neither the interrogator nor the subject will necessarily be aware that they have just implanted a post-hypnotic suggestion. And, as is the nature of hypnotism, the person is unduly confident in the new information. Often, they even come to believe that they knew it prior to the suggestion.
It may seem bizarre, but it's well-documented. It's not even disputed by anyone in the scientific community which studies the working of memory and disociative experiences. It's just not understood by laymen so these poor souls continue to be convicted due to the ignorance of others.

[Marvin]

Kevin,

That was some Karl Rovian media games at work. They knew the guy was innocent (of the Jon Benet murder), but he made a convenient distraction for a heinous court ruling against Bush that was coming down the pipe.

[Frank]

Sure, let's abandon our attempts to gain the truth from the 99% of guys who are correctly convicted, just in case those guys are part of the 1% that is so out of touch that they will confess to heinous crimes they didn't commit.

In case we're that out of touch with reality, let's keep in mind that most horrible criminals have no desire to confess when you ask them nicely. Pushing them a little is the only way to find out what happened.

[Marvin]

Tom K,

Or Kyra Sedwick's body...

There's plenty out there on false confessions. Usually, it's just interrogator mind games and hours of questioning that work the subject into a weakened pliable state. At that point, they just want to go home and will confess to the Lindbergh murder.

Go look for the "never talk to cops" YouTube video as an example of some of those interrogator gotchas that really aren't.

[aqua]

Marvin, you need to give us a chance to put on our tin-foil hats before you post a comment like that.

Besides, Karr just said that to get out of Thialand where he was doing hard time for having sex with anything underaged he could get his hands on. It worked to. Isn't he a free man today? We should have flown him back to Thailand once he was no longer a suspect in the Jon Bonet case.

[Jellybean]

First, Frank - it's closer to 12% who fall into this highly-hypnotizable category. Second, there's no need to stop interrogations. There's a need to stop FEEDING information the the subject. A false confession will not match the evidence unless the subject is TOLD the information to begin imagining.
Most detectives DO know this and ARE careful about it. But there are still way too many who don't.
Noone in their right mind should have a problem with separating the guilty from the innocent. You have an opportunity today to learn one way in which it is not happening properly. You may sit on a jury someday - it could be important.

[Jellybean]

Try the story of Billy Wayne Cope someday. He confessed to raping and killing his daughter, Amanda.
If you can manage to read the facts in the case without sitting down for a good cry afterwards - you're a much stronger person than I am.

Dateline NBC did a show on the case called "The Mystery in Rock Hill". Maybe it's available on the internet.

[FanDanGo]

Look: There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling the interviewer or the detective "Hey, I'm tired, I want to go home and rest. May I?"

If they tell you sure, go home, sleep, and come back refreshed. If they tell you "no," invoke your constitutional rights, ask for a lawyer and shut up. They'll either hold you or cut you lose.

During the interview, be firm, polite and courteous, and always say "yes sir" and "no sir." Answer questions briefly and accurately. Don't speculate. Don't pontificate. Don't infer or guess. These interviews are being recorded, and if you're the one who is polite, thoughtful, direct and honest in his answers, your credibility is enhanced.

[Jellybean]

Good advice, FanDanGo!
Especially that part about asking for your lawyer. It's right there in the Miranda "ANYTHING you say will be used AGAINST you".

[FanDanGo]

Miranda has to be read in custodial interviews. If you go in voluntarily and have the right and opportunity to freely leave, Miranda isn't in play.

[Marvin]

Aqua,

It was the Feds who went to the Boulder cops with the claim that they'd found their killer. But, a cursory look at the guy showed he was innocent (of the Jon Benet murder). Now, somehow they magically lost all of his other criminal records and had to let him go.

[Marvin]

FanDanGo,

Being polite and cooperative isn't in your best interest. Interrogators are really good at what they do and really good at keeping you talking. The average person doesn't have the sophistication to know when to shut up. So, it's best to not talk at all.

[crackhead]

And i shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy

[Jellybean]

A full one quarter of the people who have been cleared through the Innocence Project and DNA evidence, had given false confessions.
Look at the quote James highlighted here - about the 8 defendents who were convicted DESPITE being cleared by DNA. It's because police, judges and juries do not understand.

There is a disconnect between how people precieve things to be true or false and when things are more likely to be true or false. For instance - hypnotism tends to produce information which is more likely FALSE than info gained without hypnotism. But, people in general are MORE apt to believe it. People are more apt to believe someone who becomes emotional, although that has nothing to do with the liklihood that what he/she says is factual... there are all kinds of these examples.
It's worthy of attempting to educate the public about this because it's an important factor in our justice system.

[Kevin]

We are are own worse enemy. You have no reason to talk to the police They are not your friend and they do not care about your best interest. If they have enough to charge you then so be it but never give them a confession.

Just like the recent KCPD officer who confessed to doing stupid things toward a teen because of the alcohol. He thought he could buddy up to them like saying "look guys, Im straight but it was the alcohol" Give me a break.

Stop Snitching and Stop Talking

[Conservitively Correct]

Um, all you have to say is "I want a lawyer." They stop asking you questions. They have to.

[angela]

I agree with Chalveyob, if you confess to something you didn't do, you need to be in jail for being an idiot.

[bobcoejr]

As I listen to all your so rightous advice ,one thing stands out not a one of you have been arrested,and tortured by the police. If you think in some places you can just envoke your right not to talk.YOU ARE A FOOL.And those knots on your head will make that clear....

[McDonald's]

Jellybean:

"into a range of extremely high hypnotizability. They become easily disocciative and thus suggestible."

So that's why we get serious muncies after seeing a bazillion food commercials and thus overweight. I see!

[McDonald's]

Sorry, was watching a food commercial, should be munchies, not muncies.

[Jellybean]

LOL! Good point. Try not to stare directly into the light from the screen during those ads.

(bobcoejr - sorry you had that experience. But, it's not always due to headknots. It's often just because the person is trying to be cooperative. Sometimes because they're distraught and overwhelmed... there are many reasons. Only the worst of the worst use force like that but, of course, it does happen).

[The Golfer]

Conservitively Correct - They are suppose to stop, but they always come back with "Are you sure you want a lawyer, makes you look guilty of something!" And then they just keep at it.

One of their dirty tricks.

[FanDanGo]

But the Innocence Projects finds only a tiny percentage of cases where the person is truly wrongly convicted. The vast and overwhelming majority -- vast majority -- are guilty and DNA proves it so.

The Star did an article late last year or early this year about a convict who insisted on DNA tests. The test was done and proved he was guilty.

[Jellybean]

So? OF COURSE we convict more guilty people than innocent. That goes without saying.

But when we can identify specific errors in the system that are causing innocent to be convicted also - shouldn't we give a darn and FIX those errors? Don't look away. Don't pretend it's okay. It is far from okay.

[Marvin]

FanDanGo,

This was news about 6-7 years ago, but the governor of Illinois I think placed a moratorium on executions because and audit of their death penalty system found that ONE HALF of people on death row were being exonerated. Of course, he only did it because he was going to jail and wanted some Jesus points, but he did make the effort.

[chalveyob]

bobcoejr: You were never tourtured by the police, and all this BS is an attempt by people like jellybean to not convict anyone of anything.

[Tom K]

They confess to stop the pain, to be allowed to sleep, to get some food and water.

I think that resistance to this kind of thing runs on a sliding scale, but I definitely believe that a lot of people (one in eight really starts adding up) would start speaking in tongues under that kind of stress.

I have a lot of trouble convicting people of anything for several reasons. A lot of those reasons are about both the system of things that a conviction feeds and about the people that are allowed to go around abusing whoever they feel like. Also, a lot of the laws are just plain wrong and should not be on the books.

[Tom K]

Also, simply being questioned by a jerk can be the most painful experience in anyone's life. It's like he's a parasite who can suck the life force out of you.

Some of them do not come to the table to find the truth and enforce the law. They are there to suck the life out of someone and get their jollies doing it. That is the real reason why torture became popular and even why the Malleus was written. It is actually a business, too, that has been around for centuries. Look up things like the witch hunts and deodands.

[Jellybean]

Speaking of witchhunts - many of those executed during the Renaissance confessed to being witches without having been tortured. If you don't believe in false confessions, do you then believe in witches?

[Tom K]

I believe that there are a lot of false confessions out there. The victims of the witch-hunts, a lot like some of the victims of pedophilia raids and dog-breeder raids, included a number of people who at some point came to believe the accusations themselves.

All three are actually part and parcel of the same swindle.

[Jo Jo]

JB, you seem to be advancing the notion that 12% of ALL people (based on what statistical sampling, I'm not sure) fall into this category, yet there is no idication that this 12% comprises a disproportionately high or low, or even fairly representative percentage of the prison population. In these terms, the 12% figure is meaningless.

I doubt you purposely tried to intimate that 12% of all confessions were given by these overly-susceptible folks (and were thus considered false confessions), but without clarifying that, it seems a bit misleading.

Tom, thank you for at least keeping up a consistent secretion of crazy.

Fangy, you bring up perhaps the most concrete point to appreciate the scope of false confessions and wrongful convictions. The various Innocence Projects are run by extremely competent criminal and appellate attorneys, who are highly trained in identifying the cases that are worth taking based on their likelihood of success. These cases are an extreme minority of all criminal convictions, though that is not to say that there are not crappy convictions that are just not easily reversible (for various reasons). As much as we want to believe the anti-police, anti-government, idealistic rhetoric, the bad guys who confess are almost always confessing because they did it.

[Frank]

You people are hilarious. I don't know how every interrogator does things, but a proper technique is to actually introduce false information about the crime in order to weed these things out. You would be surprised how many people want to correct such things without thinking about it. And yes, there are strange people who want to confess to crimes they didn't commit to get the attention. Those people are usually pretty easy to weed out.

[sickoftheidiots]

I'm sorry Fandango. That was poor advice you gave earlier in the discussion.

I don't care what you may, or may not have done, or how "simple" it may seem to a layperson to explain the the police. Never consent to an interview or otherwise answer questions without an attorney present. Your just setting yourself up for a fall.

You have the right to remain silent. Use it. Period.

[Tom K]

The fact is that they pick someone who looks likely and they try to get a confession. With enough practice they can get that confession in a fair number of cases. I think that getting at the truth requires a bit more commitment and professionalism than these "investigators" have.

[Jellybean]

Jo Jo, the 12% was the sampling of society that falls into the high-hypnotizability range. That's all. The stat came from a study by Martin Orne.
So no, I did NOT mean to imply that number as a number representing false confessions. You understood correctly. Thanks for clarifying it.

[TJ]

For what it's worth, I have had people confess to me to crimes they had nothing to do with. I recognize it because I may give some information about the crime so they know I'm not grabbing at straws, but I always leave information out that only the suspect could know. If during the confession they can't give that information I attempt to uncover the reason for the false confession, and then look somewhere else. That is also how I teach it. No matter what state of mine you are in you can't give information you don't have.