Why People Waive Their Miranda Rights: The Power of Innocence

In a laboratory experiment, 72 participants who were guilty or innocent of a mock theft were apprehended for investigation. Motivated to avoid prosecution and trial, they were confronted by a neutral, sympathetic, or hostile male "detective" who sought a waiver of their Miranda rights. Later, 72 other participants watched videotapes of these sessions and answered questions about the detective and suspect. Strikingly, results showed that although the detective's demeanor had no effect, participants who were truly innocent were significantly more likely to sign a waiver than those who were guilty. Naively believing in the power of their innocence to set them free, most waived their rights even in the hostile detective condition, where the risk of interrogation was apparent. The conceptual and policy implications of these results are discussed.     

The assessment of continued threat to the community in a mentally ill offender program

Community based outpatient treatment for Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders and those found not guility by reason of insanity are based on controversial empirical grounds. The present research examines how mental health evaluators determine when an offender is or is not a threat to the community for purposes of program continuance. Of 13 variables identified by the staff of the offenders' program or from the literature as important in making this prediction, three were found to be related to the evaluation decision: initial psychiatric diagnosis, the presence of supportive relationships in the community, and improvement in therapy. These findings are discussed in terms of the empirical and philosophical literature on psychiatric detention and treatment.     

Same-Sex Couples and the Marriage Model

In Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] U.K.H.L. 30, the U.K. House of Lords upheld the right of a man to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased same-sex partner as if he had been the husband or wife of the deceased. This note examines the five judgements delivered by the court and considers the implications of the decision. It argues that, within the context of family law, Mendoza was a welcome decision but an evolutionary dead-end. The case signals a more promising approach to the development of human rights, but the appropriate use and scope of s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 remain somewhat unclear.     

“I’d Know a False Confession if I Saw One”: A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators

College students and police investigators watched or listened to 10 prison inmates confessing to crimes. Half the confessions were true accounts; half were false—concocted for the study. Consistent with much recent research, students were generally more accurate than police, and accuracy rates were higher among those presented with audiotaped than videotaped confessions. In addition, investigators were significantly more confident in their judgments and also prone to judge confessors guilty. To determine if police accuracy would increase if this guilty response bias were neutralized, participants in a second experiment were specifically informed that half the confessions were true and half were false. This manipulation eliminated the investigator response bias, but it did not increase accuracy or lower confidence. These findings are discussed for what they imply about the post-interrogation risks to innocent suspects who confess.     

Equality in the Family Home?

The recent decision of the House of Lords in Stack v. Dowden appears, at first sight, to endorse a new approach to the jointly owned family home. However, upon closer inspection, this proves to be something of an illusion: the new approach is remarkably similar to the traditional resulting trust in that it attaches more weight to financial payments than to other contributions. A further problem is that the disjunction between the reasoning of the judges and the actual result makes it a difficult decision to apply to future cases. This case-note will consider the legal and social issues raised by the case and will argue that it has the potential to disadvantage women who do not make an equal financial contribution to the purchase of the home.