Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

Posted by timothy on from the well-you-did-you-know dept.

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."

12 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. The average human being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is a gullible idiot.

    1. Re:The average human being by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:The average human being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Here's an interesting follow-up idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Reid Technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. It's called the Reid technique and the police in the US have been deliberately exploiting it for years to obtain false convictions.

    They know they are exploiting a psychological weakness. They do not care that innocent people are sent to prison. They simply want convictions.

  4. The (in)justice system by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And along with that, "plea bargains" should be absolutely forbidden. What they do is provide the prosecution tools to coerce and frighten victims of the system into admitting guilt for things they didn't do, at the same time as they take the determination of the individual's guilt out of the hands of a jury.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:The (in)justice system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. The law frequently gives a range of punishments, e.g. upper and lower limits for fines or jail time, and the judge can pick something lower if the defendant saves everyone a bunch of time by just admitting it. Some laws also allow judges to remit or change the charges to a lesser crime depending on the circumstances too, especially if part of the plea bargain involves helping them catch other people. It has nothing to do with partly committing a crime, but what amount of punishments and exactly what charges are used. That said, it can pressure innocent people in tough situations to just accept guilt.

    2. Re:The (in)justice system by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:The (in)justice system by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "plea bargains" should be absolutely forbidden.

      You're assuming infinite resources. As it is, would you prefer a system where (1) your taxes now have to cover a 20-30-fold increase in state and federal courts (and prosecutors) needed to take all cases to trial; (2) on the other side of the bar, an even higher percentage of the population becomes criminal defense lawyers; and (3) you yourself end up on jury duty multiple times a year?

      Or, would you rather a world where the prosecutors just pursue the most egregious criminals given the limited resources they have, and put everyone else right back out on the streets with no deterrent whatsoever?

      I'm not suggesting the current plea-bargain system is optimal or that incremental changes aren't possible. What I am suggesting that you can't just throw out such a fundamental piece without stepping back and redesigning the entire system.

    4. Re:The (in)justice system by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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! There wouldn't be enough people to serve on the juries for the people that missed jury duty!

      GOOD! Then we might finally get some of these arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, bullshit laws off the books!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:The (in)justice system by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 5, Interesting

      -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?

    6. Re:The (in)justice system by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or you've spent 5 years in an illegal prison without valid charge, and subject to torture.
      Finally, prosecution says you can go home tomorrow if you plead guilty to this new retrospective crime we just made up.

      And there you have the confession and first conviction of a Gitmo detainee! (Five years later, the US Court of Appeals ruled the conviction invalid.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...