“Because interrogations are intended to coerce confessions, interrogators feel themselves justified in using their coercive means. Consistency regarding the technique is not important; inducing anxiety and fear is the point.”
~ Aldrich Ames
“How can someone admit to a crime they didn’t commit?”
Modern studies show that false confessions, where people confess to crimes, they did not commit are far more frequent than one would think. Under the weight of psychological pressure and fear, the situation can push you to say the unthinkable: “I did it.” The aim of this article is thus to shed light on such issues and provide an understanding of the psychology of false confessions.
WHAT ARE FALSE CONFESSIONS?
False confession refers to a situation where a person admits to having committed an offence they have not committed. This confession can be given under different conditions: pressure, manipulation or other forms of psychological coercion. Coerced compliance could be a result of forceful tactics in interrogation or desire for something or to avoid something whereas coerced internal false confession might stem from confusion, suggestiveness and or both. When the individual is innocent, the constant pressure or choice of memory may cheat a man and bring him to the conclusion that he is guilty.
A false confession can be divided into three types:
- Coerced-Compliant Confessions: These happen when somebody agrees to admit to having committed an offence through threats or pressures that are real or imagined by the person or even to gain some benefits, such as stopping a lengthy interrogation process. The person does not think he or she is guilty of the crimes said and then follows what is said due to other factors.
- Coerced-Internalized Confessions: In this type, the person starts being convinced that he or she is guilty of the crime; this may be due to overly suggestive or coercive interrogation tactics. It gets to a point where the person’s memory is tainted, which may lead to the false belief that the person is indeed guilty.
- Voluntary False Confessions: These are confessions not elicited by force, persuasion, or any other compelling force. People can give information libel to a crime they did not commit for various reasons, for instance, a need to gain attention, a guilt complex concerning other issues, or defending another person.
HOW DO SUCH FALSE CONFESSIONS TAKE PLACE?
Criminal interrogations are rather helpful while investigating, but they also have their evil side. Extreme psychological investigation pressures and mind games can make even the purest people admit that they are guilty which is especially common in children.
The psychological factors that are involved in interrogations indicate how vulnerable a person can be in yielding to pressure and giving statements that incriminate him/her. Due to such mental contortion, suggestible people may confess to decrease their feelings of anxiety as they confuse it with the feeling of guilt. Prolonged cross-examination can reinforce such feelings making the suspects feel guilty of having committed the crime. Stress and isolation techniques of interrogation and the use of force, in general, compel the suspects to develop a new version of the event and give guilt-incriminating answers. False confessions are not only because of psychological coercion, but other factors that include, illiteracy, lack of understanding of rights, or the accused person might have a mental illness, or is intoxicated by substances when confessing.
One of the most effective ploys is the use of youth, which is commonly ineffective in cases when adolescents’ abilities to resist and make proper decisions are still underdeveloped because of their still-growing brain tissue during interrogations. Psychological disorders, for example, autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), are more vulnerable during these events.
Other important components that need to be controlled are the duration of interrogations that tires the subject, creates confusion and makes him unfit to resist influence. Sleep deprivation can lead to a decline in cognitive function, and suggestibility makes such suspects more prone to being compelled. Interrogators may also deceive suspects into correcting something or giving a confession to an unrelated matter by showing forged evidence or by telling a suspect that being released is an option if he or she confesses.
Even if it is innocence itself that can lead to enhanced false confession. This is because many people have faith in the justice system meaning that most of them will decline their rights or even work with the police even when forced. This may make them more vulnerable to pressure from other people; they also have an overconfidence complex. Furthermore, better suspects may opt to confess, especially when they are led to believe that there is evidence against them more so when they may think that admitting to the charge is safer than undergoing a long and tiring interrogation.
ARE THERE ANY CASES IN INDIA REGARDING FALSE CONFESSIONS?
The Broken System: Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police report identifies major shortcomings in the system that contribute to obtaining false confessions through coercion, errors in procedure, and ill-treatment. Overworked officers, who are juggling duties such as crime investigations and VIP escorts, use shortcuts such as falsification of records or resort to physical abuse to extract confessions which are often condoned by their seniors. It negatively affects the marginalized groups that are more vulnerable due to police biases and the strength of bribes, social status, and political connections. The fear that stems from this situation drives people away, reducing trust in law enforcement. This leads to unreported crimes, wrongful prosecutions, and an increase in crime. Such events result in wrongful prosecutions and violations of fundamental rights. The examples also illustrate the need for amendments to be instituted regarding the recording of questioning as one of the measures to promote accountability. The following are some critical cases illuminating the fundamental problems in the context of false testimony and obstructing justice.
- In the case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P (2003) , the confession was not in the prescribed questions and answers form, which was a procedural defect. Accused Pooran Singh took back the confession on 28.7.1985, stating that he was forced to make it as he would be made a prosecution witness. He stated that while he was in custody, his signature was taken on some statement by the police, and he was brought handcuffed before the Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate admitted that Pooran Singh was delivered by the police from Police Station Daboh and then was sent back to their custody after recording his confession. Much later, Pooran Singh, in his written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., asserted that he had been tortured and threatened by the police to make false confessions.
- In the case of Prakash v. Commissioner (2005) , it was pointed out that electronic recording of custodial interrogation is a transformative tool in the criminal justice system that enhances its accuracy and accountability. Providing a clear, verbatim record reduces the probability of false confessions and provides a strong deterrent to lying by both defendants and police. The recordings will also serve as a check against unreliable memories of both the witness and the investigator and will discourage the use of unsavoury interrogation techniques, for this reason being learnt of, thereby promoting better practices and guaranteeing a more just and transparent process.
- In the case of Mahesh Ram & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2007) , This case originated against a false implication in the case of murder in the year 2000 by three petitioners, Mahesh Ram, Ganesh Ram, and Chandradeo Ram. The petitioners were arrested and detained on erroneous accusations and fabricated confessions. The petitioners got discharged after eight months of detention for no crime found to have occurred. However, such wrongful prosecution was anchored on false information and police mishandling, such as the use of a falsified confession and incorrect handling of the investigation. The court found the horrendous violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and ordered compensation for illegal detention and abuse of powers by the officers of the state; sovereign immunity would not bar the state from facing liability for violations against rights.
- In the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) , Going through the 1856 report, which shaped section 25 of The Indian Evidence Act, exposed critical flaws in the justice system of colonial India. It found that despite measures against coercion, police often fabricated or extorted confessions to cover up their failures in solving crimes. This not only protected actual offenders from being penalized but also hindered justice. It recommended banning police examinations that result in written confessions to prevent these abuses and ensure a fair legal process.
CONCLUSION
False confessions reflect the complex interplay of psychological coercion and the legal process. Although multiple safeguards exist to protect against coerced confessions, it is constantly challenging to guarantee that confessions are voluntary and truthful. It is crucial to protect the integrity of the justice process by further refining interrogation methods and strengthening legal protections so that confessions serve, rather than defeat, justice.
Author(s) Name : Tvesha Uniyal (Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad)
