• • • A false confession is an admission of for a crime for which the confessor is not responsible. False can be induced through or by the or of the accused. Research demonstrates that false confessions occur on a regular basis in, which is one reason why has established a series of rules—called 'confession rules'—to detect, and subsequently reject, false confessions. Plea agreements typically require the defendant to stipulate to a set of facts establishing that he/she is guilty of the offense; in the United States federal system, before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.

Tabtight professional, free when you need it, VPN service. A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime for which the confessor is not responsible. False confessions can be induced through coercion or by the mental disorder or incompetency of the accused. Research demonstrates that false confessions occur on a regular basis in case law, which is one reason why.

Main article: The Birmingham Six were six men from Northern Ireland accused of carrying out the in 1974. After their arrest four of the six confessed to the crime.

These confessions were later claimed to be the result of intimidation and torture by police, including the use of dogs and mock executions. In 1991, after 17 years in prison, an appeal into their convictions was allowed which showed widespread police fabrication, suppression of evidence and extreme irregularities in the relevant forensic evidence. All six individuals were then released and awarded compensation of up to £1.2 million.

As a result of this and other miscarriages of justice a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was established in March 1991. Guildford Four (1974) [ ]. Main article: As a result of the Guildford pub bombings carried out by Irish republican paramilitaries in 1974, four Irish individuals were charged and convicted of murder and terrorist activities. All had confessed to the crimes while in police custody but later retracted their statements.

In their trial they would claim that the confessions were a result of intimidation and torture by police. A further seven relatives of one of the original four were also convicted of terrorist activities in 1976. All of the individuals involved had their convictions quashed after up to 16 years in prison by two rulings in 1989 and 1991. These investigations revealed large scale deception and illegal activities undertaken by both the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

In 2005 the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, issued a public apology for their imprisonment, describing it as an 'injustice' and stating that 'they deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated'. Stefan Kiszko (1976) [ ]. Main article: Stefan Kiszko was convicted of murder in 1976, in what was later described as 'the worst miscarriage of justice of all time'. One of the main pieces of prosecution evidence was a confession made after three days of police questioning. After almost 16 years in prison, Kiszko was exonerated in 1992. When asked why he had confessed to a crime he did not commit, Kiszko replied 'I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go'.

United States [ ] Brown v. Mississippi (1936) [ ]. Main article: In the United States, the 1936 ruling in established conclusively that confessions extracted through the use of physical brutality violate the. In this case, defendants, Arthur Ellington, Ed Brown and Henry Shields (three black tenant farmers) had been sentenced to death for the murder of Raymond Stewart (a white planter) on 30 March 1934.

The convictions had been based solely on confessions obtained through violence: '. Main articles: and In the case, on 19 April 1989, five teens aged from 14 to 16 were arrested and each confessed on videotape to the crime of attacking and raping a jogger and implicated each other. They later repudiated these confessions and maintained their innocence. The five were: Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana and Kharey Wise.

In 1989, the police were aware that an unidentified sixth person had left semen on the victim's body. In 2002, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and rapist, admitted that he was responsible for the rape and attack of the jogger. The obtained from the crime scene matched Reyes.

New York state justice Charles J. Tejada vacated the convictions of five defendants on 19 December 2002. Yusef Salaam served six and a half years in prison. Kharey Wise was imprisoned until summer 2002, which was when his sentence was completed. Jeffrey Mark Deskovic (1990) [ ], was convicted in 1990 at age 16, of raping, beating and strangling a high school classmate, even though jurors were told the DNA evidence in the case did not point to him.

He was incarcerated for 15 years. He confessed to the crime after hours of an interrogation without being given an opportunity to seek legal counsel.

Juan Rivera (1992) [ ], a Waukegan, Illinois man, was wrongfully convicted of the 1992 rape and murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker. A number of pieces of evidence excluded Juan, including DNA from the rape kit and the report from the electronic ankle monitor he was wearing at the time while awaiting trial for a non-violent burglary, however, he confessed after being interrogated for several days using the, a style of police interrogation that is known for its history of eliciting false confessions. His conviction was overturned in 2011 and the appellate took the unusual step of barring prosecutors from retrying him.

Rivera filed a lawsuit against a number of parties, including John E. Reid & Associates, who developed the Reid technique. Reid contends that the false confession was the result of the Reid technique being used incorrectly. Rivera was taken to Reid headquarters in Chicago twice during his interrogation for polygraph tests, which were inconclusive, however, an employee named Michael Masokas told Rivera that he failed. The case was settled out of court with John E. Reid & Associates paying $2 million.

Gary Gauger (1993) [ ] was sentenced to death for the murders of his parents, Morris, 74, and Ruth, 70, at their farm in April 1993. He was interrogated for over 21 hours and gave the police a statement, and they took it as a confession.

His conviction was overturned in 1996 and Gauger was freed. He was pardoned in 2002.

Two motorcycle gang members were later convicted of Morris and Ruth Gauger's murders. West Memphis Three (1993) [ ] The (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley) were convicted for the 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys. One month after the murders, police interrogated Misskelley, who has an IQ of 72, for five hours before he confessed to the murders, implicating Echols and Baldwin. Misskelley immediately recanted and said he was coerced to confess. Despite that the confession contained massive internal inconsistencies and differed significantly from what the physical evidence revealed, Misskelley and Baldwin were sentenced to life without parole and Echols was sentenced to death. For the next 17 years, they maintained their innocence.

In August 2011, DNA evidence was inconclusive and included an unknown contributor. Prosecutors did not throw out the convictions based on other evidence and offered them a deal that they plead guilty in exchange for time served. They accepted, but said that they will continue to clear their names and find the real murderer(s).

Norfolk Four (1997) [ ]. A police interrogation room Camera perspective bias [ ] Psychological research suggests that evaluations of videotaped confessions are altered by changes in the camera perspective used at initial recording. In the United States and in many other countries, interrogations are typically recorded with the camera positioned behind the and focused squarely on the suspect. Research indicates that the camera perspective influences assessments of, on the part of the detective, and even the dichotomy of guilt. Extensive empirical data has been collected in this area, manipulating the camera perspective to a suspect-focus (the front of the suspect from waist up and the back of the 's head and shoulders), detective-focus (the front of the detective and the back of the suspect), and equal-focus (the profiles of both the detective and the suspect were equally visible) perspective. For example, mock police interrogations resulting in a confession and videotaped simultaneously from the suspect-focus and equal-focus perspectives were presented to participants in one of the following formats: subject-focus videotape, equal-focus videotape, audiotape recording, or written transcript.

The participants' perceptions of the and of the confession were assessed via questionnaire. Videotaped confessions taped in the suspect-focus view resulted in judgments of relatively greater, notably when compared to both and which are assumed to be free. Equal-focus videotapes produced judgments that did not differ from those based on either or transcripts. The manner in which videotaping is implemented holds the potential for.

This can be avoided by using an equal-focus perspective. This finding has been replicated numerous times, reflecting the growing uses of videotaped confessions in. Causes [ ] Illusory causation [ ] Camera perspective bias is a result of and, more specifically, illusory causation. People commit attribution error when they ascribe causality to people or environmental entities to which they are attending.

Illusory causation occurs when people ascribe unwanted to a simply because it is more noticeable or salient than other available stimuli. Illusory causation is perceptual-based, meaning it occurs because salient information is registered and perceptually organized differently from nonsalient information. In regards to camera perspective bias, the perspective of the camera determines which interactant (detective or suspect) is salient and which one is nonsalient. Visual perspective is important in determining attributional differences between interactants.

In early demonstrations of illusory causation, observers viewed a causal, two-person conversation. Visual perspective was varied by the differential seating of the observers. After the conversation ended, observers rated each interactant in terms of the amount of causal influence he or she exerted during the exchange. The results revealed that greater was attributed to whichever person observers happened to be facing. This was determined by their seating position, a factor that is entirely incidental and should therefore have had no bearing on causal judgments. Observers who sat where they could see both interactants very well viewed both subjects equally in terms of. Attributional complexity is the ability to efficiently deduce causality in necessary situations.

High levels of attributional complexity do not alter the effects of the camera perspective bias. Participants separated in low attributional complexity and high attributional complexity groups according to individual differences, showed no significant differences in the camera perspective effect that was still present in both groups. Therefore, possessing a high level of attributional complexity does not shield one from the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions. Visual attention [ ] Changes in camera perspective are accompanied by changes in the visual content available to the observer. Using eye-tracking as a measure and monitor of visual attention, researchers deduced that visual attention mediates the camera perspective bias. That is, the correlation between camera perspective and the resulting bias is caused by the viewer's visual attention, which is decided by the angle of the camera.

This provides evidence that differences in visual content may also mediate bias. Reducing the bias [ ] Judicial instruction [ ] Judges conduct an with and to decide on the and the of a confession when its legitimacy is disputed. Likewise, it is the job of jurors to decide on the of the confession, which ultimately leads to the dichotomous decision of. Research shows that a judge's requirement-of-proof instruction to a mock jury (the defendant is presumed innocent, the burden of proof is on the, and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt) has more impact on jurors' when made prior to the presentation of evidence than when made after the presentation of.

Therefore, the timing of (before or after the presentation of the confession) can be a potential moderator of the camera perspective bias. When participants are given emphasizing the need to be cognizant of reliability and fairness in evaluating the confession and, in some cases, directly alerting mock jurors to the potentially prejudicial effect of camera perspective, the camera perspective bias persists. This is true whether the precedes or follows the presentation of the confession. The sampling of jury-eligible adults facilitated a realistic, fact-based trial simulation allowing the results can be generalized to real courtroom situations. Expertise [ ] Judges play a crucial role in determining what confession evidence juries are allowed to consider.

It is possible that their greater knowledge, experience, and understanding of the law can mitigate them against the camera bias effect. Yet, experts (judges and ) presented with suspect-focus, detective-focus, and equal focus versions of a videotaped confession replicated prior data patterns, indicating camera bias perspective. Thus, relevant expertise provides no defense against the influence of camera perspective.

Accountability [ ] Accountability (or blameworthiness) does not alter camera perspective bias even though high yield a more careful and thorough processing of information. Failed attempts have been made to mitigate camera perspective bias by manipulating the amount of participants feel while viewing a confession. Accountability is manipulated by telling participants that they will later have an opportunity to justify their judgments of voluntariness to a trial judge. More specifically, in a high-accountability group, participants are told that a local judge has agreed to meet with them to review their judgment and determine if the manner in which they arrived at their judgment is correct. In the low-accountability condition, no mention of meeting with a judge is made; instead participants are left with the impression that their responses will be confidential and anonymous. Participants view either the subject-focus or equal-focus version of the confession.

Ratings of in both the high-accountability and low-accountability groups show camera perspective bias. Ecological validity argument [ ] Criticisms regarding psychological research concerning jury simulation claim that it lacks in. According to these criticisms, moving closer to a high standard of ecological validity is required for psychological science to sway the skeptical legal community. One issue cited through archival data collection addresses the popular use of college undergraduate students, which is especially detrimental in jury simulation because of the relative infrequency with which college students serve on actual juries. According to the criticism, this hinders 'the feasibility of generalizing from simulation studies to the behavior of real juror.' In order to satisfy the skeptical nature of the law community, as discussed above, researchers began using jury-eligible adults instead of undergraduate students.

Another limitation to camera perspective bias research is that the majority of interrogations/confessions that have been used as converging evidence include simulations of trial rather than actual trial information. Therefore, there is no demonstrating the camera perspective bias generalizes to authentic videotapes recorded by police that depict actual suspects and.

Researchers have thus begun comparing judgments of and guilt of the suspect in each perspective condition (suspect-focus, equal-focus, and detective-focus, audio only, reading only) using authentic, recorded interrogations. Driver Para Blue Light Ivia N10. The investigations demonstrate the camera perspective bias found in previous studies. Policy recommendations [ ] Research indicates that an equal focus perspective produces relatively unbiased assessments of videotaped interrogations.

However, many members of may consider the equal-focus view unsatisfactory because it does not provide a full-face view of the suspect, and thus important information in the expression cannot be presented. Investigation into the dual-camera approach revealed that this perspective eliminates the usual camera perspective bias on and guilt judgments, but it was no better than the infamous suspect-focus condition in terms of its impact on the ability to accurately distinguish between true and false confession. To aid criminal-justice practitioners and legal policy makers to achieve sound and fair policy, psychologists presented the following recommendations based on the body of research: • Custodial interrogations recorded in their entirety with the camera positioned so that the resultant videotape displays an equal-focus or detective-focus perspective. • If an interrogation has already been videotaped from a suspect-focus perspective, it should not be used.

Rather, the use of an or a derived from the videotape should serve in its place. • The dual-camera approach is not advised because it does nothing to moderate actual accuracy of judgments. Police mindset [ ] Police use persuasive manipulation techniques when conducting interrogations in hopes of obtaining a confession. These can include lying about evidence, making suspects believe they are there to help them, or pretending to be the suspect's friends. After enough time and persuasion suspects are likely to conform to the investigators' demands for a confession, even if it was to a crime they did not commit. One of the most important findings in guilt manipulation research is that once guilt is induced in the subject, it can be directed into greater compliance with requests that are completely unrelated to the original source of guilt. This has important implications for police interrogation, because guilt induction is recommended in manuals on police interrogation.

A 2010 study conducted by Fisher and Geiselman showed the lack of instruction given to entry-level police officers regarding the interview process. They stated in their research that, 'We were discouraged to find that police often receive only minimal, and sometimes no, formal training to interview cooperative witnesses, and, not surprisingly, their actual interview practices are quite poor.' While many officers may develop their own interview techniques, the lack of formal training could lead to interviewing with the purpose of simply completing the investigation, regardless of the truth. The easiest way to complete an investigation would be a confession. Fisher and Geiselman concur, saying, 'It seems to be more on interrogating suspects (to elicit confessions) rather than on interviewing cooperative witnesses and victims'.

This study suggests that more training could prevent false confessions, and give police a new mindset while in the interview room. Racial salience bias [ ] Psychological research has explored camera perspective bias with African American and Chinese American suspects.

African Americans are victims to strong linking them with criminal behavior, but these stereotypes are not prevalent towards Chinese Americans, making the two ethnicities ideal for comparison. Participants were randomly assigned to view mock police interrogations developed using a male Caucasian detective questioning a Caucasian, Chinese American, or African American male suspect regarding his whereabouts at a given time and date. All interrogations were taped in an equal-focus perspective.

Voluntariness judgments varied as a function of the race of the suspect. More participants viewing the Chinese American suspect and the African American suspect versions of the interrogation judged the suspect's statements to be voluntary than did those viewing the Caucasian suspect version. Both the African American suspect and the Chinese American suspect were judged to have a higher likelihood of guilt than the Caucasian suspect.

Racial salience bias in videotaped interrogations is a genuine phenomenon that has been proven through. See also [ ]. • Cooley, M., Craig, and Turvey E. Miscarriages of Justice: Actual Innocence, Forensic Evidence, and the Law. Gerontological Nursing Competencies For Care 2nd Edition Test Bank.

Academic Press, 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2015.

• Kassin, Saul M. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 17 (4): 249–253.. • Bray, Christopher.,, 6 March 2006.

Retrieved 8 January 2008. 13 August 2011. • 24 January 2007 at the. Retrieved 3 May 2015.

157 (1986) • Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian, University of California Press, 1999 p. Voice of Bahrain. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD. Retrieved 3 May 2015. 29 April 2008. Archived from on 23 September 2015. • Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, 1999, p.4 • Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, 1999, p. 222 • Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions by Ervand Abrahamian, University of California Press, 1999 p.