Perceptions of coercion in interrogation: comparing expert and lay opinions

ABSTRACT

When confessions are entered into evidence in criminal courts, issues of coercion and voluntariness are important and often contested matters. Occasionally, defense attorneys proffer expert witnesses to testify about the coercive pressures of an interrogation and the risk of a false confession. Such testimony is often ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it does not inform the jury beyond its common knowledge. In our effort to test this judicial assumption about common knowledge, we surveyed jury-eligible laypeople (n?=?67) and social scientists specializing in interrogation and confessions (n?=?54) regarding their opinions about the coerciveness of prohibited interrogation tactics, maximization techniques, minimization techniques, and suspect risk factors and compared their ratings with a set of independent t tests. Laypeople gave lower ratings to the coerciveness of all sets of items representing interrogation techniques, and lower ratings to the vulnerabilities associated with suspect risk factors, as compared to social science experts. The disparities between laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of coercion in interrogations demonstrate that such issues are not fully within the common knowledge of prospective jurors, and suggest the need to provide jurors with expert witness guidance when tasked with evaluating confession evidence.     

Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants

Because many juvenile offenders are intellectually disabled and have their cases tried by jurors in adult criminal court, it is important to understand factors that influence jurors’ judgments in such cases. Using a mock trial methodology, we explored the relations among jurors’ gender, attitudes toward intellectual disability, and judgments in a criminal case involving an intellectually disabled 15-year-old girl accused of murder. Men mock jurors’ judgments were not influenced by their preexisting biases, but women's were: the more women favored special treatment for disabled offenders, the less likely they were to suspect the disabled juvenile was guilty and the less likely they were to convict her. Implications for actual cases involving disabled juvenile defendants are discussed.     

Knowing when the camera lies: Judicial instructions mitigate the camera perspective bias

Purpose. Videotaped confession evidence elicits harsher evaluations against a defendant if initially recorded with the camera focused primarily on the suspect, compared with other presentation formats. Unfortunately, most videotaped confession evidence employs this biasing suspect‐focus camera perspective format, leaving defendants with no recourse. The present study examined the utility of judicial instructions in mitigating the effects of the camera perspective bias on individual juror verdicts. Methods. Through random assignment, 156 mock jurors did or did not receive explicit instructions to correct for the camera perspective bias prior to viewing a video recording of an authentic true or false confession. Results. As expected, mock jurors who received instructions to correct for the camera perspective bias reported more lenient judgments of confessor guilt after viewing a suspect‐focus confession recording compared to those who did not receive such instructions. However, this relative leniency emerged only in response to false, and not true, confessions. Conclusions. Results demonstrated that judicial instructions used in the present research mitigated the effect of camera perspective on mock‐juror judgments of suspect guilt.     

Jurors’ reactions to recanted confessions: Do the defendant's personal and dispositional characteristics play a role?

Abstract

Confession evidence presented at trial is extremely damaging to the defense. This study examines the impact of a recanted confession on jurors’ perceptions of a murder case in which the defendant claimed to have falsely confessed due either to an underlying medical condition, a psychological disorder, or the general stress of the interrogation. Also included were an inadmissible confession condition and a no-confession control condition. Results showed that the impact of the confession was mediated in part by the circumstances surrounding it. Although probability-of-commission estimates were as high in all of the conditions involving a confession, conviction rates were marginally higher when the disputed confession involved mental illness or interrogation-induced stress than when there was no confession, yet did not differ when the disputed confession involved a medical disorder or there was no confession. These findings show that not all recanted confessions are treated equally and that people selectively discount confessions depending on biases and beliefs they hold.     

刑事诉讼法实施中的若干问题研究

辩护律师向犯罪嫌疑人、被告人核实证据时,除了可以将有罪的实物证据告诉犯罪嫌疑人、被告人之外,其他的证据都不能告诉;"两个基本"应当坚持,但要防止误读和滥用;只有使犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在肉体上或精神上遭受剧烈疼痛或者痛苦的程度与刑讯逼供相当,迫使其违背意愿供述时,获取的供述才应予以排除;在规定的办案场所以外讯问和未依法对讯问进行全程录音录像的行为属于违法,但所取得的供述依法不在排除之列;对指定居所监视居住期间没有违反规定的犯罪嫌疑人,只要其符合逮捕条件,可以转捕;羁押必要性审查的范围包括一切影响羁押条件成立的情况;纪委在查办案件中收集的证据,可以参照刑诉法关于行政机关在行政执法和查办案件过程中收集的证据的规定办理。     

Economically disadvantaged juvenile offenders tried in adult court are perceived as less able to understand their actions,but more guilty

We investigated the influence of a juvenile defendant's socioeconomic status (SES) on mock jurors’ perceptions of a juvenile tried in adult court. As predicted, participants convicted the low SES juvenile defendant of felony murder significantly more than the middle or high SES juvenile defendant. Yet, participants also rated the low SES juvenile as less mature than the middle or high SES juvenile – a belief that past research shows predicts leniency in verdicts (i.e., not guilty judgments). Finally, stereotypes about the criminality of low SES juvenile defendants, not a lack of perceived similarity, partially mediated the effect of SES on guilt.     

Mock Juror Gender Biases and Perceptions of Self-Defense Claims in Intimate Partner Homicide

Findings are reported from an experiment that examined mock jurors’ gender biases regarding intimate homicide case adjudications. Mock jurors were more likely to convict a man than a woman who had killed an abusive partner, which was partially mediated by sympathy toward both the victim and defendant. Analyses revealed an abuser height and abuser gender interaction such that conviction rates for women defendants were higher when her abuser was taller compared to when he was shorter than she; abuser height did not influence conviction rates for men. Findings also suggested that when given information about a child being present, mock jurors perceived the killing of the abusive partner as an act to protect that child. The results are discussed in relation to how extra-legal factors impact juror perceptions of domestic violence cases in the courtroom.     

Police interrogation

Abstract

We describe a study of more than 1000 interrogations by Metropolitan Police Officers. Obtaining a confession is found to be the paramount reason for interviewing a suspect. However, few suspects who did not initially confess changed their minds during the interview. 42% of suspects admitted their guilt—about the same number as obtained before tape recording of interviews was introduced. Strength of evidence and legal advice were the principal factors associated with confessing. The confession rate also varied according to which police station hosted the “interview”. An “accusatorial” style of questioning was associated with the possession of strong evidence against the suspect.     

How do sex offenders think the police should interview to elicit confessions from sex offenders?

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore sex offenders' perceptions of how the police should interview suspected sex offenders to facilitate confessions, and to investigate whether there is a relationship between sex offenders' perceptions of how the police interviewed them and their decisions to confess or deny. Forty-three convicted sex offenders were interviewed using two 35-item questionnaires that contained five questions on each of seven interviewing strategies. An additional 20 violent offenders were included for comparison purposes. The strategies were evidence presenting strategies, ethical interviewing, displays of humanity, displays of dominance, use of minimization and maximization techniques, and demonstrating an understanding of sex offenders' cognitive distortions. One questionnaire concerned how the police should interview sex offenders and the other concerned how they perceived the police who interviewed them. Generally speaking, evidence presenting strategies, ethical interviewing, and displays of humanity were perceived to increase the likelihood of a confession. Interviewer dominance was perceived to be associated with a reduction in the likelihood of a confession.     

Taking the bait: interrogation questions about hypothetical evidence may inflate perceptions of guilt

ABSTRACT

During suspect interviews, police will sometimes ask about hypothetical incriminating evidence to evoke a cue to deception – a technique known as a bait question. Previous research has demonstrated such questions can distort peoples’ memory for what evidence exists in a case. Here, we investigate whether such memory distortion can also cause people to see the suspect as more likely to be guilty. Across three experiments, we find exposure to bait questions led to participants hold inflated views of a suspect’s guilt. Further, we demonstrate bait questions cause reliable, robust memory distortion, leading participants to believe non-existent, incriminating evidence exists. However, we found no evidence to support the speculated mechanisms for this inflation – namely, (1) that source monitoring errors could lead people to misremember false evidence as real evidence and (2) that bait questions provide ‘key evidence’ to fill in the gaps of an incomplete theory of a case. In sum, bait questions have the problematic potential to shift jurors towards guilty verdicts. We suggest future research directions on bait questions, including the need for different designs to clarify why bait questions inflate guilt, and recommend practitioners avoid the use of bait questions.     

Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit false-evidence ploys on Mock Jurors' verdicts,sentencing recommendations,and perceptions of police interrogation

In police interrogation, an explicit false claim to have evidence raises important legal and constitutional questions. Therefore, some interrogation manuals recommend implicit false-evidence ploys (FEP) that ask suspects about potential evidence without making a direct claim to possess the evidence. Similar to the hypotheses in a recent study of implicit FEP and confession rates, we hypothesized that individuals would perceive implicit FEP as less coercive and deceptive when compared to explicit FEP that involve direct claims of false evidence. Although mock jurors rated all FEP as highly deceptive and coercive and as more deceptive than controls, we found that participants did not view implicit and explicit FEP differently and that ploy specificity (implicit or explicit) failed to affect verdicts or recommended sentences. These findings suggest that although interrogation trainers and scholars in law and psychology discriminate between the methods, jurors do not.     

The problem of writing,enforcing, and teaching ethical rules: A reply to professor Goldman

psychological terms, the [Japanese] system relies on positive rather than negative reinforcement, emphasizing loving acceptance in exchange for genuine repentance. An analogue of what the Japanese policeman wants the offender to feel is the tearful relief of a child when confession of wrongdoing to his parents results in a gentle laugh and a warm hug. In relation to American policemen, Japanese officers want to be known for the warmth of their care rather than the strictness of their enforcement.¹

Much of the most disturbing police behaviour stems from two connected facts: the system's overwhelming dependence on admissions of guilt, and the absence of checks on police power in the interrogation room. In Japan, the conditions of interrogation—the duration and intensity of questioning, the duty to endure questioning even after the right to silence has been invoked, and the unavailability of defence lawyers—means that an ‘overborne will’ is more than merely an occasional problem.²     

Perceptions of suspect statements: a comparison of exposed lies and confessions

Confrontational interrogation techniques seek to produce a confession, while investigative interviews focus on information gathering and/or catching suspects in lies. Confessions obtained during interrogations are potent for securing a defendant’s conviction. However, the goal of investigative interviews is not to produce a confession, yet it is unknown if their outcome (e.g. exposed lies) is as effective in court as that of an interrogation (i.e. a confession). In two studies, mock jurors read case summaries wherein a defendant was accused of murder and terrorist activities. In both cases, the statement a defendant made during a police interview was manipulated: The defendant either lied or not and either confessed or not. Participants then rendered a verdict and were asked about the probative value of several pieces of supporting evidence. Results were similar across both studies with more convictions when the defendant lied, confessed, or did both relative to when the defendant produced a statement without lies and without a confession. Furthermore, we found that perceptions of supporting evidence mediated the effect of exposed lies on culpability, but this was not the case for confessions. These findings illustrate the positive qualities of presenting exposed lies in court, diminishing the need for a confession.     

Hearsay Versus Children's Testimony: Effects of Truthful and Deceptive Statements on Jurors’ Decisions

Researchers and courts are focusing increasing attention on the reliability of children's out-of-court statements, especially in relation to trials of child sexual abuse. The main goal of this study was to investigate the effects of presentation of children's out-of-court statements (e.g., hearsay) on jurors' perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt, and on jurors' abilities to reach the truth. Child participants experienced either a mock crime or were coached to say they experienced the crime when in fact they had not. During elaborate mock trials involving community member jurors, children's testimony was presented either: (1) live, (2) on videotape, or (3) via a social worker. Analyses revealed that testimony format directly influenced jurors' perceptions of child and social worker credibility (e.g., children were perceived as less likely to provide false statements if they testified live) as well as jurors' sympathy toward the child, all of which then predicted jurors' confidence in defendant guilt. Jurors had difficulty discerning accurate from deceptive child statements regardless of testimony format. Implications for psychology and the legal system are discussed.     

Snitching,Lies and Computer Crashes: An Experimental Investigation of Secondary Confessions

Two laboratory studies with 332 student participants investigated secondary confessions (provided by an informant instead of the suspect). Participants allegedly caused or witnessed a simulated computer crash, then were asked to give primary or secondary confessions during interrogation. Study 1 replicated the false evidence effect for primary confessions. Secondary confessions were obtained at a high rate, which was increased by false evidence in combination with incentive to confess. In Study 2 a confederate either confessed to or denied crashing the computer. Incentive increased the rate of secondary confession only in the presence of a denial; that is, incentive increased the number of false secondary confessions only. Implications for the use of incentives during informant interrogation are discussed.     

Participant gender,stalking myth acceptance,and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: a structural equation modeling approach

The present research used a mock juror experiment (N = 360) to assess two primary goals: (1) to examine the direct and indirect effects of participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings in a stalking trial; and (2) to examine the role of perceived victim fear and distress, and defendant intended danger on perceptions of a stalking trial. Using structural equation modeling, we found an indirect effect of participant gender, and both direct and indirect effects of stalking myth acceptance and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings. Men and participants who endorsed more traditional gender role stereotypes were associated with adherence to stalking myth acceptance beliefs. Endorsement of particular stalking myth acceptance beliefs offers a partial explanation for why women and men differed on perceptions of the defendant's intent to cause danger and the victim's perceived fear and distress. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror's capacity to evaluate an ‘objective’ interpretation (i.e., ‘reasonable person’) standard of fear for intimate partner stalking.     

Police-Induced Confessions,Risk Factors,and Recommendations: Looking Ahead

Reviewing the literature on police-induced confessions, we identified suspect characteristics and interrogation tactics that influence confessions and their effects on juries. We concluded with a call for the mandatory electronic recording of interrogations and a consideration of other possible reforms. The preceding commentaries make important substantive points that can lead us forward—on the effects of videotaping of interrogations on case dispositions; on the study of non-custodial methods, such as the controversial Mr. Big technique; and on an analysis of why confessions, once withdrawn, elicit such intractable responses compared to statements given by child and adult victims. Toward these ends, we hope that this issue provides a platform for future research aimed at improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence.