Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

False confessions

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: False confessions

#11

Post by glimcat »

alanfalcon wrote: post #7

I confess that I didn't read the article, but this reminds me of the HN story of the University professor who asked students who cheated to come in to his office, and then found some large percentage who came to the office though the software exonerated them. The question is: did they cheat and get it past the software? Or were they, as suggested in this article, admitting to something they did not do?

They could easily have been intimidated by the prospect that they would be wrongfully accused and went to his office under the implied premise of amnesty. The game as visible to the student is something like an extra essay assignment weighed against possibly having to fight expulsion.

I suspect that there are similar factors involved in other false confessions. It's an asymmetric knowledge game. The only winning move for the person being questioned is not to play, but they may not be aware of that - and worse, they may trust the other player. With further intimidation, privation, and humiliation, it's not hard to imagine why people could break down.

Re: False confessions

#12

Post by baddox »

Duff wrote: post #6

Rule #1: Don't talk to the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik You're better off taking the beating.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that example? The officer could still lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=playe...

Re: False confessions

#13

Post by baddox »

autarch wrote: post #5
yuhong wrote: post #2

Yea, I am well aware of the advice to not talk to the police. But I wonder why the police would go to such trouble to get confessions as to write a letter to trick people into doing so etc.

Police are generally under a lot of pressure to close cases. Getting a confession closes a case quickly and neatly. Watch The Wire to get an idea of what kind of pressures the police face to "solve" crimes.

Also, police have power. Power has a profound impact on most people, and generally not a good one.

Re: False confessions

#14

Post by lukesandberg »

baddox wrote: post #12
Duff wrote: post #6

Rule #1: Don't talk to the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik You're better off taking the beating.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that exa…

I don't think much can help you if you are dealing with an officer who is willing to lie and falsify evidence in order to convict you. But the key detail is that its much more likely that an officer (or any person) will misremember something you said or take it out of context if you actually said anything at all.

By not talking you prevent this problem entirely because no one will accidentally forget or take out of context that fact that you never said anything at all.

Re: False confessions

#15

Post by Duff »

baddox wrote: post #12
Duff wrote: post #6

Rule #1: Don't talk to the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik You're better off taking the beating.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that exa…

"Lie" in the eye of the beholder.

To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.

Re: False confessions

#16

Post by splat »

Aloisius wrote: post #8

I've always worried that if I ever became a suspect in a crime that I would confess under pressure even if I didn't do it. There is something about me feeling guilty, authority and intimidation that makes me think I might. Then again, my coping mechanism of becoming flippant/sarcastic could flip on and I'd confess to murdering JFK, Michael Jackson and Biggie using my mind/time machine.

If that's the case, then the first words out of your mouth if you are ever interrogated are "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If you say that, then the police are legally required to stop the interrogation then and there. (Ironically, simply remaining silent is not sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins)

Re: False confessions

#18

Post by baddox »

Duff wrote: post #15
baddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've never understood from one example from that talk: If it's your word in court vs. the police officer's regarding an unrecorded conversation, how exactly does not talking help you? In the example (linked below), the police officer lied in court, saying that the defendant admitted to placing a hand on the plaintiff when the officer first approached the defendant. How does being silent help you in that exa…

"Lie" in the eye of the beholder. To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.

In the example, the cop testifies that when he first approached the defendant, the defendant admitted to placing his hand on the plaintiff's throat, but only as a joke. The defendant claimed that he never said anything of the sort to the cop. It was the cop's and plaintiff's word against the defendant's word, and the defendant was found guilty. How would it have helped if the defendant had said nothing to the cop? The cop lied about him talking.

To me, the words of a cop and a plaintiff are "reasonably doubtful," but I guess not. Anyway, my point is that in this example, the cop lied about what the defendant said.

Re: False confessions

#19

Post by seabee »

splat wrote: post #16
Aloisius wrote: post #8

I've always worried that if I ever became a suspect in a crime that I would confess under pressure even if I didn't do it. There is something about me feeling guilty, authority and intimidation that makes me think I might. Then again, my coping mechanism of becoming flippant/sarcastic could flip on and I'd confess to murdering JFK, Michael Jackson and Biggie using my mind/time machine.

If that's the case, then the first words out of your mouth if you are ever interrogated are "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If you say that, then the police are legally required to stop the interrogation then and there. (Ironically, simply remaining silent is not sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins )

Ironically but not unreasonably, since if silence were an indicator that you wished never to speak, people who wanted to talk would never reach that point.

(In the UK there is no such thing as the right to remain silent, unless you are in a situation in which you are denied access to legal advice (rare). In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Funny how it differs.)

Re: False confessions

#20

Post by billswift »

baddox wrote: post #13
autarch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police are generally under a lot of pressure to close cases. Getting a confession closes a case quickly and neatly. Watch The Wire to get an idea of what kind of pressures the police face to "solve" crimes.

Also, police have power. Power has a profound impact on most people, and generally not a good one.

I think Frank Herbert had a point when he wrote that it isn't so much that having power corrupts, as the sort of people who seek power in the first place.
Post reply on HN