“If someone confesses to a crime, they must definitely have committed that crime.” The environment people are living in is very turbulent and filled with crime. Police use a lot of investigative techniques to book perpetrators of crime to ensure that justice is served to victims. Confessions from an accused person are sometimes used as evidence to ascertain whether someone has committed a crime. It is essential to investigate the claim before arriving into conclusions. Some individual confessions might be true while some might be false. False confessions to crimes have led to wrongful convictions of innocent people while the actual perpetrators of a crime are still at large. Factors that might push a person to make false confessions include coercion and bias by investigators who at times lie and take advantage of the weak emotional status of a suspect. Threats from actual perpetrators of a crime can also make an individual confess falsely. Sometimes parents can falsely confess to the crimes committed by their children to protect them from going to jail. Sometimes gang members confess to a crime to protect their gang leaders. It is therefore crucial for investigators to gather other forms evidence on crime and to match them with confessions made to ascertain the truth. The purpose of the paper is to analyze whether confession to a crime should be used as the only form of evidence in sentencing crime suspects.
Empirical Research Articles
Appleby, S. C., &Kassin, S. M. (2016). When self-report trumps science: Effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 22 (2), 127.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The PDF of this empirical study is available in “Psychology Crime and Law” 22 (2) March 2016. The sources of the study are credible as the authors are known researchers on criminal law and justice. Sara C. Appleby is a scholar in the Department of Psychology at Mercer University, Macon, GA while Saul M. Kassin teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Evaluating the Source
The research is credible and positively contributes to understanding the claim. The researchers individually funded the article and published online on First March 10, 2016. These researchers have extensive experience in aspects of psychology. They based their study on real-life occurrences such as the Salem witch trial where people were convicted and prosecuted for the crimes they did not commit. The researchers also borrowed some of the details of their study from the Innocence Project. Actual court cases like that of 16-year-old Jeffrey Deskovic and the infamous Central Park Jogger case to explain the effects of using confession evidence in sentencing individuals ( Appleby, &Kassin, 2016).
Description of the Research
The researchers conducted three separate studies. The first study is more relevant to the claim of this paper as it compares the credibility of confession evidence against DNA test results. A snowball sample of 105 participants in the United States. Seventy-three of the participants were female while 32 were male. Participants of the study were obtained via e-mail and facebook.com. 86.6 percent of the sample was white. The age of the participants ranged from 19-51. Out of all 105 participants 83.1 percent had obtained a bachelor’s degree. To encourage participants to participate in the study, the researchers offered them an entrance to a lottery to win $50 to $75 gift cards to compensate for their time ( Appleby, &Kassin, 2016).
Participants were asked to read a summary of a criminal case, evaluate it and answer a series of questions. In each case review, the participants were allowed to evaluate eyewitness testimony versus defendant testimony. Participants were required to assess the culpability of the testimonies, whether they are exculpatory or incriminating. Another task that participants had to perform was reading and analyzing DNA reports on the sample case and decide whether it excludes or incriminates a crime suspect. Participants were required to deliver their verdicts after examining the evidence.
The Consistency of the Results with the Prediction
Majority of the participants, 80 percent, delivered their verdict favoring exculpation of the defendant when incriminating confession contradicts DNA evidence. Therefore a defendant will be seen as guilty when incriminated by DNA evidence ( Appleby, &Kassin, 2016). Participants relied more on DNA than self-report even when self-report evidence consisted of defendant’s confession. Despite the findings that participants relied on DNA far more than self-report, juries informed of exculpatory DNA evidence at times convict innocent confessors at trial.
The strength of the study relies on the use of scientifically proved evidence, DNA, to determine whether a suspect is innocent or guilty. However, the study limited by the fact that it presented contradictory evidence to participants without the contradictions from the attorneys. Participants were therefore left to resolve any evidentiary inconsistencies and close arguments on their own.
Deslauriers ‐ Varin, N., Lussier, P., & St ‐ Yves, M. (2011). Confessing their crime: Factors influencing the offender’s decision to confess to the police. Justice Quarterly , 28 (1), 113-145. Retrieved from: https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/bitstream/20.500.11794/12160/1/Deslauriers-Vari,Lussier,St-Yves_%202011_DepotUL.pdf
Evaluating the Article
The authors of the article renowned researchers and psychologists in the fields of criminal justice. Nadine Deslauriers-Varin is an assistant professor in the University Of Laval, Canada, Patrick Lussier is a professor, University of Laval, Canada while Michael St-Yves is a forensic psychologist, Behavioral Science Service in Quebec. The study is credible because the researchers have a vast knowledge in psychology and behavioral sciences.
Description of the Research
The participants of the study composed only of convicted offenders. A total of 254 French Speaking adult males were selected for the study. The study sample of the participants was obtained from a maximum penitentiary – Regional Reception Center in Quebec, Canada. Recruitment of the participants for the study was done by a research assistant who met them in a large room in groups of 15-20. Willing participants were required to sign a consent form stating that ‘the information gathered will be used for purposes of research only, and that their participation in the study (or not) will have no consequences on their stay at the penitentiary or their classification level’ ( Deslauriers ‐ Varin, Lussier, & St ‐ Yves, (2011). Participants were requested to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaires had questions related to characteristics of the index crime, factors associated with the context of interrogation, offender’s criminal history, and socio-demographic characteristics. The survey also used a randomly selected sample of correctional files to triangulate participants and gather information, such as having confessed or not, and participants have used the service of a lawyer.
The consistency of the Research with the Hypothesis
The research findings established that socio-demographic factors such as age, marital status, and parental status had a significant influence in determining confession to the crime. Criminology factors such as the nature of crime influenced the possibility of people confessing their crimes ( Deslauriers ‐ Varin, Lussier,& St ‐ Yves, 2011). Out of the sample, 45 percent had confessed to their crimes. Individual and contextual factors interact with police evidence submitted in determining the outcome of an interrogation. Criminology factors also play a pivotal role than socio-demographic factors in influencing the offender’s decision to confess. The likelihood of confession increases with crime seriousness.
The strength of the study lies in the fact that it is the first to view crime on a seriousness scale, contrary to previous empirical studies. One limitation of the study includes the examination of cases of offenders who were convicted and sent to prison while excluding cases that did not go to court.
Conclusion
The claim seems inaccurate because it contains aspects of prejudice against crime suspects. The empirical studies analyzed above show that confession evidence should not be the only source of proof of branding a suspect as guilty. Factors such as police coercion, a suspect’s criminal history, type of crime committed influence their decision to confess. The findings of the studies are reliable because they were published recently, that is, in 2016 and 2011 respectively. The articles are beneficial as they help one understand the circumstances and situations that influence a suspect’s decision to confess to committing a crime falsely.
References
Appleby, S. C., &Kassin, S. M. (2016). When self-report trumps science: Effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 22 (2), 127.
Deslauriers ‐ Varin, N., Lussier, P., & St ‐ Yves, M. (2011). Confessing their crime: Factors influencing the offender’s decision to confess to the police. Justice Quarterly , 28 (1), 113-145.
