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.
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.
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.
-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?