ABSTRACT
This study addresses the causal-result relationship of the phenomenon of false confessions during police custody interrogations. Every day in American jurisprudence, suspects and witness are interviewed by law enforcement in criminal cases. Officers are usually cognizant of their cases and the circumstances surrounding it. Constitutional issues of Miranda Warnings are usually adhered to, and the background information of the interviewee and their relationship to the crime has been established. Yet the instances of false confessions continue to surface despite scholarly studies, extensive research, and preventive training on this phenomenon. What induces a person to confess to a crime that is later revealed they knew nothing about has baffled law enforcement, the judicial, and laymen alike for decades. Law enforcement claim that those who have falsely confessed to crime-related facts and circumstances only the guilty could have known. Does law enforcement bear an ethical responsibility to corroborate false confessions to crimes? Detectives are often admonished to “own their cases.” Ownership of a case means to know every detail and nuance that surrounds a case so completely that the detective should be able to quickly identify an instance of false confession despite the insistence of the interviewee. According to Shaw and Porter (2014), persons of low IQs or limited mental capacities are often the victims of wrongful conviction based on false confessions. Others have presented various theories to explain the reoccurrence of false confessions. In this examination of false confessions, we will see cases, theorize its causes, and discuss proven preventive techniques to reduce its reoccurrence.
