Slashdot Mirror
Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime
binarstu (720435) writes "Research recently published [link is to abstract only; full text requires subscription] in Psychological Science quantifies how easy it is to convince innocent, "normal" adults that they committed a crime. The Association for Psychological Science (APS) has posted a nice summary of the research. From the APS summary: "Evidence from some wrongful-conviction cases suggests that suspects can be questioned in ways that lead them to falsely believe in and confess to committing crimes they didn't actually commit. New research provides lab-based evidence for this phenomenon, showing that innocent adult participants can be convinced, over the course of a few hours, that they had perpetrated crimes as serious as assault with a weapon in their teenage years."
What would be interesting would be to see what a polygraph says about their false memories. Can it distinguish between an event that occurred and one that was from a false memory? If not, that would be the final nail in the coffin.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Is a gullible idiot.
Yes they are, and our justice system should take that into account. Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession. Way too many people have been tricked or pressured into confessing to something they didn't do. In the 1990 Central Park jogger case several falsely accused, and subsequently convicted, teenagers claim that they were told they could go home if they confessed.
Which is why one should exercise one's right to remain silent. The police do not decide to prosecute or not, and do not get to 'make deals' or not. That's firmly in the prosecutor's realm, with required agreement from a judge in the case of plea deals. Police offers to, "go easy on you," if you cooperate now, or to, "put in a good word to X," are also meaningless, as once the evidence is turned over to the prosecutor, the police have only as much influence as the prosecutor is willing to accept.
Don't do the police's job for them, you're not required to tell them anything or to admit guilt. There's always another opportunity to "make a deal", with your lawyer and the prosecutor negotiating that deal, not you and the plainclothes detective.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession.
Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.
I've had that used on me. As soon as I realized what they were doing I called them on it (didn't know what it was called at the time) and they ended the interview right there. In Step 1 they implied they had certain evidence of my guilt and knew I was guilty; they screwed up Step 3 because I said I didn't do it, and somewhere in Step 6 or 7 realized they had no such evidence (because it didn't fit their alternatives) and called them on it.
It's not just a matter of people being idiots or people talking to police without a lawyer. There's a much deeper psychological thing going on here, and that's I think the point of the article. A famous case years ago in Iceland really illustrated this phenomenon. Six people admitted to their role in a murder in Iceland and this was thought to be an open and shut case. Several of the accused even showed police where they disposed of the body, and provided details on how they committed the murder. The problem was, none of them actually had anything to do with the murder, or any murder at all, and all the details they were remembering were not real at all. It's a very long but fascinating read. Yes they were manipulated and badgered (by well-meaning prosecutors who didn't see themselves as manipulative), but the crazy thing is that as a result they convinced themselves that they really did participate in this murder. Was this just a case of over-zealous police and prosecutors? Or was there something more to it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/specia...
To quote my lawyer, "You can still confess when you're in court". It doesn't give you jack shit to do it any earlier. Yes, a confession can shave off some time from your jail time, but never ever confess anything without first consulting your lawyer, and it makes no difference whether you do it at the police or in court. Actually in court is usually even the better option since you give the judge that good, fuzzy feeling that it was him who made you confess and that it was him who made you do the "right thing". Judges are people too, and like all they can be quite vain.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!
I heard a story about a pool of jurors that was told to go to the wrong room. The judge just ordered them all to be arrested for not showing up, and it took another judge to stop that process.
At which point, all of the jurors had to be dismissed, because now they were pissed at the judge and the whole system.
Ask yourself which makes more money for a lawyer - handling several plea bargains a day, or one long case that he is likely to lose for a client that will have no income?
You realize that many, if not most, of these plea bargains are between public defenders and the DA's office. You realize that neither group is raking in huge cash based on case volume. It isn't about making money, it is about a case load that they could not possibly handle if they had to take every one to court. Besides, the court system couldn't deal with the volume either.
It starts LONG before there are any Miranda rights - or an arrest. Often times because there is no cause for an arrest until the "suspect" tells the cop something to warrant an arrest, or consents to an otherwise unwarranted search, yielding incriminating evidence.
You can see this stuff happening all the times on shows like "Cops" - and gets to the heart of things like the Ferguson protests. Things like "Stop and frisk", "Driving while Black" and DUI checkpoints. (If you don't understand everything about DUI checkpoints - you really need to - especially if you're sober!!!
Cops can't see a car parked "someplace where this a lot of crime" and start asking the occupants questions. Or having them come out and searching the car - or going through the person's pockets. Sometime's it just completely illegal. Sometimes the police actually trick the people into consenting to a search. Sometimes they just keep talking and asking questions until they find something they don't like.
The point is - if they have no probable cause to stop/question/search/detain you - just tell them you don't answer police questions, you do not consent to police searches, and that are that you would like to go. Let's say that they ignore you. Let's say that pulled you over because they thought that "your car looked suspicious" - or even because you were speeding. They have the right to see your license, and to detain you as long as required to give you a ticket. "Speeding" is not probable cause of a crime being committed to warrant a search (this is well-settled law). If they search you without consent and (let's say) find weed - you get the evidence thrown out because it was an illegal search. If you consented - it's all legal.
To the point of the OP - because the cops don't have any evidence - nor have any way of getting evidence. The only hope they have is for you to give them evidence by means of an admission - or even saying something perfectly harmless, but that could give them a tiny puzzle piece they need. For example "I just came from Home Depot". Maybe they just pulled you over because someone in a car of your size and color just robbed - a Home Depot. Driving a pink Mazda isn't a crime (yet) - but you just gave them enough "evidence" for an arrest.
When you hear of people giving false confessions - they're always after these 13-hour marathon police interrogations. 99% of the time, the police have no cause to subject you to such an interrogation. If they "invite" you down to the police department - unless you're under arrest - you're free to politely decline. If you find yourself in such a situation - don't answer their questions, and let it be heard (you are probably being records) that you want to leave. They can arrest you or release you. 99% of the time, these "marathon interrogations" only happen with the implied consent of the person being interrogated.
Again:
Don't answer questions
Don't consent to searches
Always insist you would like to leave
Record if/when possible
LOTS of online resources on the correct ways to approach all this.
It's one of the few things that are quite black and white, either someone committed a crime or he did not.
A plea bargain is not someone saying they partially committed a crime, it is them admitting full guilt to a crime.
In reality, a plea bargain is a strategic decision by a defendant or his lawyer that he would be better off taking a shorter sentence in a plea bargain than go to court, and get a much longer sentence if he loses.
I've seen typical plea bargain of 6 months, which is time served, versus 15 years if he loses in court.
Some judges insist on a legal fiction that the defendant is voluntarily admitting to the crime, but everybody knows that it's not voluntary and people are often forced to falsely admit to crimes to avoid the risk of a much worse sentence by a vindictive prosecutor.
Lawyers have cases on file where people pled guilty to avoid a much longer sentence, and were exonerated afterwards.
The courts are punishing people for exercising their constitutional right to a trial. The most outrageous thing is that the Supreme Court approved it.
Plea Bargains save everyone time and money; as long a prosecutorial discretion exists, plea bargains will be possible. The alternative is the prosecutors office being required to pursue every single case. 5-17 year old took a nude picture of herself? Child Porn charges. kill in clear self defense? Murder charges. transpose two digits on your tax return? Tax Fraud charges.
There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!
If the prosecutors office had to pursue every single case, then our laws would be changed so that things that shouldn't be illegal aren't. Instead we have so many laws that we can't possibly obey them all and have to hope that the presecutors and police will let slide the things we do. For example, my mother takes many different medicines for a chronic illness and when I was last visiting her I picked up her medicine as we were heading out for dinner. At some point while we were out a comment was made that it was time for her to take her medicine and maybe we should head home. I produced the medicine and was told that actually I was violating the law because the particular medicine was controlled and only she (who is no longer mentally "all there") was allowed to carry it around. Wow, so I could go to prison for years for this but of course we count on prosecutorial discretion. But my life shouldn't have to depend on whether or not the prosecutor is an asshole. We should have reasonable rule of law, not rule of men.
They're a form of punishment. Being forced to testify against yourself humiliates the accused and empowers the prosecutor. It dehumanizes the accused, by showing that no, he doesn't have any of those Constitutional rights. The prosecutor is, in effect, establishing his superiority to reality itself: pretend that what happened is what he said happened, or be severely punished.
Plea bargains are basically a sadist's wet dream. And US legal system is built on the idea that justice is institutionalized sadism. Every single aspect of it is geared towards maximum harm to those caught in it, from criminal records (meant to extend punishment to infinity) to keeping people in death row for decades to uncertain methods of execution (as opposed to a simply breathing nitrogen) to private prisons (who have very incentive to make recidivism rate as high as possible). Hence the popular notion that everyone accused must be guilty, so you can enjoy watching the system grind them to bits with good conscience.
Plea bargains are a symptom, but the disease itself is simply bloodlust.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
-or they would have to be more selective about what they prosecuted.
5-17 year old took a nude picture of herself? Well I'd *like* to prosecute that, but I'm too busy prosecuting this other case.
Kill in clear self defense? Again, I'd *like* to prosecute that, but I'm too busy prosecuting this other case.
Can you imagine how horrible that would be?
Is that still legal in the USofA?
I also overheard a conversation where some cops-in-training where proud on how they learned how to get confessions out of people for things they did not do. Not get the truth out of them. To get confessions for things THEY DID NOT DO.
Country was Belgium.
When I did a reply on Usenet in an anti-abuse newsgroup of a link to childporn. I informed the police. I also informed the media when it wasn't gone after 2 days.
I was asked to come in via the company where I worked and they tried to get me for:
1) Spreading of childporn, because of the reply that still had the URL. (And that is why you must snip on quote correctly on Usenet.) When I told them I send them an email, they explained that their mailserver was broken.
2) The tried to get me for falsification of my identity, because the email-provider did not have my correct address. Like anybody would give out that on some random website.
3) They tried to get me for obstruction of the law, because I spoke to the press. If they would have just send me an autoreply, I would have done nothing. Obviously I had no idea that any investigation was going on. Also: they already KNEW who was the guilty person and were keeping it live just to get higher numbers. As the URL was already out, it ment that they were basically spreading childporn.
4) They called my company from where I had done the posting and told them they needed my information because of a child case abuse.
Luckily the COO was not an idiot and understood after 30 seconds when I told him what I had done and even asked me if he should block the info about who I was and wait for a court order. He could easily do that under Belgian law on the right to privacy. The CEO even offerd to pay for any lawyer if anything would come of it. It never did.
Imagine that this would have been another company. I could have lost my job over someting I was trying to get solved. But then: They do not care. They were clueless and only interested in the numbers, not in stopping spreading those sick, sick, sick images that I can not unsee.
When I left the police station after making clear that I was not afraid and that I did nothing do and they were basically idiots (also leaving me alone with evdence of other cases on the table) they asked me if I would keep the same login in the future. Only later did I realize that I did not know the difference between a login and an email address.
From then on I NEVER saw anything illegal on the Internet anymore. EVER.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Jurors are *way* too stupid for that.
Seriously, have you ever served on a jury? If so, I imagine they immediately picked you as jury foreman and basically let you do all the thinking for them.
Except for the one holdout who decided the guy was guilty of all charges before hearing any of the evidence.
The jurors on the jury I was on had trouble understanding the simply-explained concept that "all four of these points must be true in order for him to be guilty. If any one of these is false, then he is not guilty." The judge did a good job explaining this. But the jurors immediately said things like "well he is definitely guilty because he did these three things no question." They thought that the obviousness of the three things meant that the fourth didn't matter.
Jurors think slopily. They will ask questions that are completely irrelevant to the law and use that to form an opinion as to whether or not what someone did was morally right, and then use that to incorrectly convict (or not convict).
The current process of arriving at jury instructions involves both lawyers as well as the judge. Though it takes some power away from the jury, in my opinion it is absolutely necessary because jurors are stupid.