CONFESSIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES: Are They Always Safe and Relevant?

Ludwig Lowenstein Ph.D.
Southern England Psychological Services

Abstract
This paper seeks to highlight the dangers currently possible of obtaining false confessions. There are numerous ways this can occur especially with vulnerable individuals: the young, suggestible, retarded and those suffering from psychological problems. Here special approaches must be found to obtain evidence of guilt or innocence. Such procedures as minimalisation, creating false and incriminating evidence (e.g. witnesses that do not exist and other forms of trickery) need to be avoided. At the same time the police must be considered by providing them with valid procedures for obtaining valid confessions. Special methods may be necessary when questioning terrorists due to the danger they are to the general public.

Confessions in Criminal Cases: Are They Always Safe and Relevant?
Psychologists tend on the whole to concentrate on what is deemed to be good versus faulty ways of obtaining confessions. The purpose is to improve the questioning or interrogation skills of the police and others. It is also in order to protect vulnerable individuals from being forced into making admissions for the wrong reasons or because they have been trapped or coerced into incriminating themselves. At the same time it is essential to view the role of the police in curbing true criminal activities by their obtaining justified confessions. It is therefore important to allow the police to use certain strategies for seeking and obtaining justified confessions. To prevent this is to handicap the police in attempting to solve often very serious crimes. Somehow there must be developed a balance between ways that do not always obtain confessions and those methods which are capable of doing so but may not be altogether justified because they coerce, threaten or trick individuals into making statements that are to their detriment in cases of innocence.

Confessions are still deemed to be one of the most vital ways of establishing guilt due to the commission of a crime. In the past, and not so distant past, and even at present, it is not always considered to be wrong to coerce confessions. In the case of terrorism such a threat today in the minds of the general public, there is even the view that torture may not always be disallowed for the purpose of obtaining information which could save the lives of many innocent people. In such cases the confession sought and obtained may be justified even when this results from coerced procedures. In most other cases the researchers find that confessions induced illegally and “forced” are far from safe .

We will now consider why it is that people confess, before turning to the question of why interrogators seek confessions, followed by research into whether confessions are always safe , and what research is fundamental in understanding why it is not always safe . Finally, the author of this paper has researched a sample of individuals, who provided false confessions later retracted, as the result of being an expert witness to the courts.

Why Do People Confess?
What follows will be viewed from the point of view of the possible victim of false confessions. Individuals confess for a number of reasons. Primarily it is that they feel compelled to do so by internal or external pressures. This compulsion may reside within themselves , that is, feeling guilty without pressure from external forces. It may also occur as a result of pressure outside themselves from those interviewing them. The latter reason will inevitably put pressure on the victim to
confess after participating in a crime or for other reasons.

The reasons for confessions sometimes interact with one another. If the individual knows that he/she has committed an offence, a confession might follow sooner or later due to feelings of guilt or because the accused is aware that there is other evidence which is convincing enough to the accusers to make denial meaningless of ludicrous. It is unfortunate that sometimes accusers will “manufacture evidence” in order to elicit a confession such as claiming to have found DNA when this is not the case. 15-25% of DNA exonerated individuals have been known to plead guilty despite being innocent ( Faigman et al., 2002). It is possible, whether unlawful acts have been committed or not, that the individual will confess. This is because the interviewee sometimes feels that denial is of no value, even when they know themselves to be innocent of that particular offence. There is considerable evidence that some police use procedures such as subtle or direct promises of leniency, “ minimalisation ”, in order to extract confessions, especially with more vulnerable suspects such as the young, those of low intelligence (Brodsky & Bennett, 2005) or those suffering from a variety of emotional or psychological problems or mental illness. Such confessions are sometimes later retracted.

In the United States , the famous Miranda Rule is also sometimes ignored, intentionally or by accident, by the police in order to obtain a confession. This states clearly that the individual being questioned can remain silent if he/she wishes to do so, to which is usually added, but such lack of responding may be used in evidence against him/her at a later stage. Many individuals fail to remain silent and the reasons for this will be discussed more intensively later.
The power of the effect of authoritarian police officers using a process of minimalisation can make a powerful impact on both guilty and innocent individuals. As already stated coercive interrogation is particularly likely to make an impact on vulnerable individuals i.e. those of low intelligence, the young, the suggestible and those with weak personalities. Here interviewees are often told that the criminal activity they have committed is less serious than is actually the case. This is in order to obtain a confession through such a strategy of minimalisation . This sometimes leads to a confession whether the individual is guilty or not of any offence.

Sometimes it has even been claimed by innocent victims who face the process of this minimalisation procedure, that they can avoid stressful interviews and even go home if they confess. The pressure on more vulnerable persons is often intense after prolonged and intensive interrogation and such minimalisation can lead to a break-down in the tendency to no longer proclaim their innocence.

Special care should be taken when eliciting confessions from those with lower IQs, the young (Goldstein et al., 2005), the suggestible (Bering & Shakelford , 2005; De Clue, 2005). This is especially the case when the following occurs: 1) the interrogations are very long and intense; 2) when the confessions occur too quickly or too spontaneously. Psychologists can have a vital input to prevent false confessions leading to false convictions (De Clue, 2005; Rosen, 2005).

Innocent individuals frequently believe that their own knowledge of being innocent is the best possible armour against being found guilty. They feel they have nothing to fear. In this assertion, they are wrong.

Innocent people under intense interrogation can incriminate themselves without meaning to do so. They will often respond to questioning when they have no need to respond at all (Goldstein et al., 2005; Rosen, 2005), and thereby incriminate themselves.

Numerous forensic psychologists have attempted to discover answers as to why innocent individuals despite being innocent, confess to crimes which they have not committed (Witt, 2005). It is suggested that psychological testing before, during and after questioning is essential and one way of preventing false confessions. Psychologists must also be aware of police using such strategies as minimalisation , offering leniency or “a deal” ( Russano et al., 2005). While guilty persons were more likely, than innocent persons, to confess to crimes, the offer of minimalisation and the offer of “a deal” increased the rate of both true and false confessions. It is considered sensible therefore for the police to refrain from using either strategies for inducing confessions, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals such as to youth, those of low intelligence, suggestibility and those having psychological problems.

Why Do Interrogators Seek Confessions?
The police have a difficult role to fulfil . There is considerable pressure on them to seek a confession if they consider that the suspect has carried out a crime. They are praised when they have secured a confession which later leads to a conviction. Naturally, a confession and subsequent conviction should be based on irrefutable evidence. Sometimes, but by no means always , the police consider themselves to be able to judge guilt from innocence. They sometimes get it wrong. Their confidence in this situation can result at times in injustice including the wrong person being presumed guilty whilst that person is yet innocent.

Once they have interviewed the individual and decided on a path of action it leads to “interrogation” in order to obtain a confession. This is indicated by Kassin (2005) and typically by the reply of the police officer that they never interrogate an innocent individual. Kassin's view is different “…if they were concerned that their persuasive methods or influence might cause innocent people to confess…. then undoubtedly they would act differently.” The most common reply by police officers is ‘ they would never interrogate innocent people'. This indicates that they have already some conviction that the individual is guilty of something and all that is needed is an admission from the person concerned. This Kassin (2005) indicates constitutes a bias towards guilt, while interviewing any suspect. Such prejudice could lead to innocent individuals being considered guilty unless there is already other evidence available such as witnesses, profile material or other supporting evidence to counteract this view (Davis & Follette , 2002).

Psychological profiles and profilers also at times work from the point of view of a “hunch”. Hunches are rarely based on objective evidence or factual information. The hunch is chosen after viewing of TV roles by psychological profilers such as the unrealistic profiler “Cracker”. There is currently no objective evidence that hunches or instinct plays any part in deriving right judgements as to guilt or innocence. Such hunches results, very often in biases. Hence police and the prosecution do not always seek to establish the innocence but rather the guilt of the individual. This is contrary to one's civil rights. Defence lawyers act similarly. They do not seek to establish guilt but rather its opposite.
Innocent persons can be coerced into confessing to crimes they have not committed ( Henkel & Coffman, 2004) sometimes due to incorrect remembering of events leading to memory distortions. This is commonly termed ‘false memory inducement' (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005).

Retarded individuals as well as those who are suggestible, and young are especially susceptible to making false confessions elicited by leading questions and interrogation pressure (Brodsky & Bennett, 2005). This is why many investigators, and particularly psychologists, emphasise the need for legal reform in police interrogation practices (Bering & Shackelford, 2005). Psychologists and psychiatrists therefore have an important part to play when confessions are disputed and when vulnerable individuals wave their right to silence ( DeClue , 2005; Goldstein et al. 2005; Witt, 2005; Rosen, 2005).

Henkel and Coffman (2004), mentioned earlier, noted that suspects can be coerced or induced into falsely confessing to crimes that they did not commit. The confessors come even to believe they committed the crime and sometimes create vivid but contrived memories of their activities.

Sometimes mental illness as well as retardation combine to lead individuals eventually to buckle under pressure and hence make false confessions due to leading questions and interrogative pressures ( Redlich & Appelbaum , 2004; Brodsky & Bennett, 2005; Davis & O'Donahue , 2004). In recent times there has been some criticism on interrogation suggestibility such as that put forward by Gudjonsson's Suggestibility Scales with adults. It has been found by Beail , (2002) that this scale however is ineffective with intellectual disability clients and is likely to be more effective with those of average intelligence but disadvantages people with intellectual limitations. Suggestibility is also often noted among adolescents whose IQ is very low (Trowbridge, 2003; Perske , 2004; Everington & Keyes, 1999; Perske , 2000).

Recent Research into Whether Confessions are Always Reliable
Considerable reference has already been made to the fact that many confessions are unreliable or totally flawed. Recent research into detection during interview of truthful versus untruthful statements being made provide little certainty as to whether lying or truthfulness can be ascertained through verbal or non verbal cues ( Vrij , Edward, & Bull, 2001). Suspects react in different ways and relentless interrogations frequently lead to flawed confessions. Some individuals become diffident and overawed; others become truculent and even aggressive. Judgements made by interrogators are often different interpretations by psychologists. The case of Tom Sawyer from Florida in the United States is an example of this. He was picked up by the police and charged with sexual assault and murder. He was interrogated for 16 hours (an excessively lengthy period especially for a young person) and a confession was eventually extracted. He was suspected because his face became flushed while being interrogated. What was not known at the time was that the suspect was a recovered alcoholic who was easily embarrassed. He also suffered from a social anxiety disorder which led to profuse sweating and reddening of his face. When this was discovered, the case was dropped by the Judge (Leo & Ofshe , 1998).

There are numerous illustrations of a similar nature where the enthusiasm of the police to gain a conviction resulted in selective and wrong perception of events. This led to wrong conclusions being drawn. This is even the case when group decisions are reached as to the validity or lack of validity of a suspects statements ( Vrij , Edward, & Bull, 2001). High levels of inaccuracy by the police in detecting truth from deception have also been provided when assessing criminality (Mann, Vrij & Bull, 2004). Mock crimes allegedly committed by university students were similarly misinterpreted by police officers. Here accuracy did not exceed chance level ( Hartwig , Granhag , Stromwall & Vrij , 2004).

Training in how to spot deception did not help to increase accuracy. Instead it led to bias toward a guilty verdict. The training was given in the Reid technique ( Kassin & Fong, 1999). It was noted that police officers, no doubt due to the job they held, tended to harbour a bias towards suspects and their guilt considering them more likely to have done something wrong. Such bias is not really helpful when dealing with anxious and nervous individuals who show some behaviours which appear to indicate guilt but this may be due to reasons other than having committed a crime. In fact certain non verbal indirect behavioural traits are more likely to provide real evidence of deception and hence guilt ( Vrij , Edward, & Bull, 2001).

A number of researchers find the need to improve interviewing techniques via appropriate training. This is felt likely to improve interviewing as well as interrogation to obviate biases (Bull & Milne, 2004; Vrij , 2004). This approach especially is useful in the case of the young, the unintelligent and the suggestible ( Oberlander & Goldstein, 2001). It is even worse for those who are encumbered with all three of these handicaps making them even more vulnerable individuals.

The right to remain silent, termed the Miranda role in the United States , when interviewed, constitutes another way of protecting innocent individuals. In the UK no term such as the Miranda law is in vogue, instead the phrase used tends to be ‘you have a right to remain silent …. '. This usually continues paraphrased with ‘but if you decide to reply to the questions your answers may be used against you in a court of law'. Unfortunately the mentally ill ( Drizin & Leo, 2004; Redlich & Appelbaum , 2004) as well as young persons and those suffering from being suggestible, or suffering from mental retardation, are equally prone to provide false confessions by responding to questioning when they need not do so ( Fulero & Everington , 2004; Brodsky & Bennett, 2005). Such individuals do not always know what is meant by ‘the right to remain silent' during interrogation and are likely to forget to remain silent, especially if provoked by the questions asked. In many instances such interviewees, despite being advised by their solicitor to make “no comment” statements, fail to abide by such advice mainly because they have forgotten the advice being provided and the police are very good at being ‘intrusive' and seeking to get responses from unwilling but often vulnerable individuals. Many such interviewees eventually succumb to the coercive questioning by the police.

Police tactics cleverly establish good rapport with the interviewee or suspect leading to eventual compliance with those who are vulnerable for the reasons already mentioned. It is unfortunate that there is currently no valid measure of suggestibility when the suspect is at the same time of low and even more of very low intelligence ( Beail , 2002).

The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale appears to be much more valid with people of average or better ability and hence such a test for suggestibility cannot be effectively used with those of low intelligence. Those individuals interviewed who have no previous record of a conviction for any crime appear also to be more likely to waive their right to silence than previous offenders (Leo, 1996; Kassin & Norwick , 2004), by 81% compared with 36%. Those who have previous convictions also may waive their right to silence. This is because they wish to appear to be innocent and feel that by speaking when they have a right to be silent they would proclaim their innocence more powerfully.

Those who have no previous criminal record do so on the grounds that they feel they have “nothing to hide”, and hence allow themselves to be interviewed ( Kassin , 2005). This is because they attribute the fact that they feel themselves to be innocent to a naïve faith in the powers of their own innocence. The courts are sensitive to confessions carried out via threats but are less likely to consider more subtle procedures such as minimalisation as a reason for considering a confession unsafe (White, 2003).

As an independent expert witness I have had to ascertain on numerous occasions whether a confession, later retracted in some cases, was safe as a confession or whether the retraction was the true statement of affairs. The reason for the confession, later retracted, having been made was almost always due to the subtle or direct promises by the police of leniency.

In a number of cases promises were made to the suspect that he could leave the holding cell and the police station if he confessed tp guilt. This was often an effective strategy, which took place not while the individual was being formally interviewed with the tape recorder running or while being videoed. It was more likely to happen around long interviews with a vulnerable subject, usually a young person with low intelligence and/or with mental or psychological problems.

Hence we may note that confessions are not always reliable, despite the fact that juries place much credence on confessions - and in fact more than on other evidence such as eye-witness testimony. Confessions by young, suggestible, unintelligent individuals with psychological problems are likely to be especially unreliable unless supported by other evidence.

What about the Interviewers?
Those who seek to establish guilt or innocence are usually police officers. They receive training in how to assess suspects. They seek to establish whether the individual is telling the truth or avoiding the truth, or lying. The training does not make them more effective assessors of establishing the veracity of suspect's statements ( Kassin & Fong, 1999). Furthermore interview techniques are not carried out in many cases with an independent or open mind. The emphasis is on the presumption of guilt rather than the possibility of innocence. Despite the likelihood of these interviewers being confident in their conclusion success is by chance i.e obtaining a confession which is valid.

The approach of interviewers should be to establish whether an individual is likely to be telling the truth i.e. being innocent, or lying, or denying, and possibly guilty therefore of an offence. Following the interview, there is often an intensive, lengthy interrogation. The objective here is to establish not only whether the individual is guilty of lying, but details of the offence being revealed by the individual i.e. how, where and when the offences occurred.
Interviewers, usually the police, pride themselves, often unjustifiably with being able to ascertain whether the interviewee is lying or being truthful. There is no such evidence available at present of irrefutable and perfect knowledge by the police on the basis of their interview. Police and others perform, on the whole, no better than chance ( Memon , Vrij & Bull, 2003; Vrij 2000). Providing training for interviewers results in small and only inconsistent improvement, compared with a sample of untrained police officers (Porter, Woodworth & Birt 2000; Kassin & Fong, 1999). The same may be said for experienced police officers, psychiatrists, judges, customs inspectors and polygraph examiners who only perform marginally better than the untrained (Porter et al, 2000; Garrido , Masip & Herrero , 2004; Bull, 1989; DePaulo , 1994).

The most useful way to identify true from false statements appear to be via ascertaining indirect deception ( Vrij , Edward & Bull, 2001; DePaulo et al, 2003). Some interviewers, whether trained or not trained, are intuitively better at discriminating truths from lies ( Ekman , O'Sullivan & Frank, 1999). Once a suspect has been interviewed, suspicions lead inexorably to the next stage. Unfortunately the interrogation process is already based on the assumption that the suspect is likely to be guilty and it is the object of the police merely to ascertain a confession. The time for being unbiased as to innocence or guilt has passed. Hence whatever the suspect says will be interpreted as false or evasive if it does not fall within the perspective of supporting evidence for the crime allegedly committed. This would assume that the individual is guilty unless he is virtually capable of proving his innocence. Hence, the presumption of innocence no longer arises (Snyder & Stukas , 1999).

The behaviour of the interviewer also appears to influence the behaviour of the suspect in many ways. Much physical movements by interviewers often lead to fidgeting and other movements by the suspect, being influenced by the interviewers' physical movements. This is then interpreted as a sign of guilt despite the fact that it was brought about by the interviewers' behaviour . Highly aggressive interviewers tend also to have subjects who are anxious or themselves hostile ( Akehurst and Vrij , 1999).

It is difficult to know how or what to substitute for the attitude of the police of presuming guilt rather than innocence, or not knowing whilst interrogating suspects ( Meissner & Kassin , 2004). One approach might be to presume innocence always as a strong possibility even at the stage of interrogation, while seeking evidence from other sources for both the possibility of guilt or innocence. This will do much to enhance the view of the general public and the regard it has for the police and the methods being used by the police.

This could well mean the avoidance of the use of the Reid 9 Step Technique, a summary of which now follows:
1) Confront the subject with considering him/her guilty;
2) Find ways of making the subject feel less guilty about the crime, by the interviewer presenting extenuating reasons or excuses for the crime allegedly committed;
3) The interviewer refusing to accept any denial;
4) The interviewer refusing to accept suspect's moral, factual, or other arguments;
5) Avoiding allowing the suspect to withdraw from the interrogation;
6) Showing sympathy and understanding towards the suspect in order to obtain his/her continuing co-operation including compliance leading to a confession;
7) Offering a face-saving get-out, for the crime allegedly committed, that is excuses or rationalisation for the crime being implanted within the suspect in order to make it easier to continue confessing;
8) Getting suspect to provide precise details concerning the commission of the offence;
9) Converting these details into a full length comprehensive confession.

The combination of anxiety producing isolation, accusation and minimalisation have a powerful influence on suspects especially if they are young suggestible, and suffering from psychological problems or are of low intelligence. Points 8 & 9 of the Reid 9-Step Technique could provide evidence for the crime not having been carried out by the suspect, especially where such elaboration could even point to another possible suspect and not the one being interviewed. It has been well established that in innocent individuals, there is a tendency for they themselves to consider themselves innocent of a crime and it is these individuals who are more likely to avoid making such statements as “no comment”, or invoking their “Miranda Rights”.

Actually being innocent is not always a valid protection, sure of being considered so by the police during their interrogation, because of their presumption of guilt and merely working towards proof that will show the individual is guilty through a confession.

False confessions arise when the suspect volunteers ‘guilt', when actually they are innocent. This is done due to the authority of the police and the suggestibility and the pressure that is put upon hapless and often innocent victims. These victims will often bow to the pressure of the interrogator because they wish to avoid further questioning. Sometimes false scenarios or memories are created by the interrogator, with which the suspect eventually agrees, again due to suggestibility (Lassiter, 2004). Long or lengthy periods of interrogation are meant to wear down the resistance of the guilty. Unfortunately it also wears down the resistance of the innocent. One study reveals that the average period to be 16.3 hours, an excessively lengthy time, especially for a vulnerable individual ( Drizin & Leo, 2004).

The danger of false confession cannot be over emphasised as it has resulted in numerous high profile injustices including the death sentence. Some such individuals have eventually been exonerated due to DNA evidence once they were no longer alive. False confessions also occur as a result of trickery such as claiming to have other evidence which confirms the guilt of the suspect.

Police sometimes claim to have enough evidence to convict such individuals by stating that they had failed the polygraph which they had not failed, had been seen on CCTV when this is not the case, or having left DNA evidence such as blood or hair etc. at the crime scene. Sometimes the police will even state that the individual had been seen by witnesses at the scene of the crime committing the crime.

There is also the tendency for some police officers to claim they have fingerprints or footprints when none are actually available. This will again affect the highly suggestible younger individual with low intellectual ability to a greater degree than the more intelligent, mature and less suggestible individual ( Redlich , 2004).

The process of obtaining a false confession is not so different from being brainwashed and results even in the innocent being unable to defend themselves due to the pressure and skill of the interrogators. This is because intelligence is lacking or they are in some other way vulnerable and they find it futile to uphold their stand of innocence. It may be rare but occasionally it does occur that the police will use such tactics as contrived evidence which to the innocent individual who is vulnerable will appear to be overwhelming and lead to confessions that are flawed ( Horselenberg , Merckelbach , & Josephs, 2003; Henkel & Coffman, 2004).

A review article by Kassin & Gudjonsson (2004) introduced in an article by Elizabeth Loftus (2004) attempts to find solutions to the problem of innocent individuals providing false confessions. They recommend a number of sensible ways of identifying or attempting to identify truth from false ways of interviewing and thereby obtaining false confessions. Videotaping throughout interviews and focusing the camera not only on the interviewee but also the interviewers is highly recommended. Changes are recommended in current practices especially the practice of outright lying to suspects.

It is important to start not from an assumptionof guilt but rather from the possibility of guilt or innocence. Also to be avoided are the types of custody and interrogation that puts pressure on suspects. Needless to say there should be no ‘trickery' involved so that suspects can be protected from false statements that claim that DNA evidence, witness statements, finger prints, blood or polygraph information is available when this is not the case. It is also important to encourage individuals throughout the interviews not to make statements, whether false or true, as they are likely to incriminate themselves by so doing. The use of minimalisation such as that which refers to the possibility of leniency must also be avoided.

This of course considerably reduces the armoury of the police attempting to interview and break down suspects. It is suggested that other ways be found not as yet readily available which would avoid trickery but at the same time provide the police with strategies for obtaining a true account of events from suspects.
Controversial as it may seem there may be exceptions to this in cases of threatened terrorism. Suspected terrorists will require very specific approaches which may go counter to civil liberties but then one must consider the general population and the many likely victims that could follow if and when terrorists, or suspected terrorists are not questioned or interrogated effectively. The danger to the general public must be viewed as being of primary importance even above the rights or civil liberties of individuals who may be suspects in terrorist offences. Hence suspected terrorists who have information that could be helpful in preventing acts of terror require a very particular as yet unspecified way of obtaining information in order to save the lives of many.

The Assessment of Twenty One Subjects Who Gave False Confessions Followed by Retraction.
In the course of 20+ years of carrying out assessments on both convicted individual and those coming for trial, evidence has been provided to the court of false confessions by the current psychologist. In some cases, the accused were on remand. At other times they were on bail. After continuous questioning they eventually made confessions which were unsafe and the reasons for this are delineated in the graphs that follow. On the advice from the psychologist and the defence solicitors these confessions were later retracted.

Table 1
Types of Offences Alleged
Grievous Bodily Harm 7
Affray 9
Robbery 3
Other Offence 2


Table 2
Status of the Accused
Retarded (below 70 Full Scale IQ) 4
Young (under 21) 2
Psychologically disturbed 2
Suggestible 1
Retarded and young 2
Retarded and psychologically disturbed 2
Retarded and suggestible 3
Young and suggestible 2
Retarded, young and suggestible 1
Retarded, young, suggestible and psychologically disturbed 2

Table 3
Reasons Given by Accused for Initially Giving False Confessions Later Retracted
Pressure from police during interrogation resulting in a resulting in anxiety 7
Being encouraged to confess by means of a variety of techniques such as:
(a) minimalisation 5
(b) promised leniency 4
(c) felt to be guilty due to evidence put forward by police 5

Summary
Certain vulnerable individuals are likely to confess to events or crimes in which they are not involved. It is therefore vital for psychologists to be involved with cases of uncertainty and in many cases psychologists are involved. It is of course uncertain as whether there are any other numbers of individuals who have made confessions when there is no other evidence available to confirm these confessions and such individuals are convicted unjustly and unfairly. It is therefore recommended that considerable vigilance be employed to make certain that innocent individuals do not pay for crimes they have not committed.

There has been considerable research in recent years on confessions in criminal cases and whether they are indeed safe . In many cases they are safe, but they are particularly questionable when certain interview techniques and interrogations are used, most especially with vulnerable individuals, those of low intelligence, the mentally disturbed, the very young, and the suggestible.

Interrogators often seek confessions in cases where there is doubtful information about the possible guilt of the individual. Recent research into whether confessions are always reliable have indicated that they are not reliable in many cases and frequently are followed by retractions. This is due to the fact that the police and others who interrogate suspects frequently use methods that are especially dangerous with vulnerable individuals and include ignoring an emphasis on the Miranda Rule using such strategies as minimalisation by claiming to have evidence of guilt in other areas.
To illustrate the lack of reliability of confessions, in the experimental work section a number of reasons are given by those who have given false confessions followed later by retractions. A small sample of 21 individuals were analysed as to status, reasons for confessing, and types of alleged criminal activity.

References
Akehurst , L., & Vrij , A. (1999). Creating suspects in police interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 192-210.
Beail , N. (2002). Interrogative suggestibility, memory and intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol 15(2), 129-137.
Bering, J. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005).Evolutionary Psychology and False Confession. American Psychologist, Vol 60(9), 1037-1038.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. Oxford Psychology Series, New York , NY , US : Oxford University Press.
Brodsky, S. L., & Bennett, A. D. (2005). Psychological assessments of confessions and suggestibility in mentally retarded suspects. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, Vol 33(3), 359-366.
Bull, R. (1989). Can training enhance the detection of deception? In J. C. Yuille (Ed), Credibility assessment (pp. 83-99). London : Kluwer Academic.
Bull, R., & Milne, B. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181-196). New York : Kluwer Academic.
Davis, D., & O'Donahue , W. T. (2004). The road to perdition: Extreme influence tactics in the interrogation room. Handbook of forensic psychology: Resource for mental health and legal professionals (pp. 897-996). New York , NY , US : Elsevier Science.
Davis, D., & Follette , W. C. (2002). Rethinking probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling and the postdiction of behaviour . Law and Human Behaviour , 26, 133-158.
DeClue , G. (2005). Interrogations and disputed confessions: A manual for forensic psychological practice. Sarasota , FL , US : Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange, Inc.
DePaulo , B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83-86.
DePaulo , B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck , L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112.
Drizin , S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007.
Ekman , P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263-266.
Everington , C., & Keyes, D. W. (1999). Mental retardation: Diagnosing mental retardation in criminal proceedings: The critical importance of documenting adaptive behavior. Forensic Examiner, Vol 8(7-8), 31-34.
Faigman , D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2002). Science in the law: Forensic science issues, St. Paul , MN : West.
Fulero , S. M., & Everington , C. (2004). Mental retardation, competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533-543.
Garrido , E., Masip , J., & Herrero , C. (2004). Police officers, credibility judgements : Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254-275.
Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie , L. O., Kalbeitzer , R., Osman , D., & Geier , J. L. (2005). Juvenile Offenders Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confession. Assessment, Vol 12(4), 462.
Hartwig , M., Granhap , P.A., Stromwall , L. A; & Vrij , A. (2004). Police officers' lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely vs. observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429-456.
Henkel , L. A., & Coffman, K. J. (2004). Memory distortions in coerced false confessions: A source monitoring framework analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 567-588.
Horselenberg , R., Merckelbach , H., & Josephs,