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

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: False confessions

#51

Post by tspiteri »

roel_v wrote: post #44
InclinedPlane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're extra paranoid just print out a card that says "as a policy I do not speak to the police except through a lawyer". Then you can present it to the police as necessary and use it as evidence if they attempt to claim you confessed something to them without a lawyer present.

There is no difference between saying that and having it on a card. Plus if it's on a card it's going to have been taken away from you when you were booked, or you may not be allowed to take it, or whatever. Or it may be used against you in another way, as most physical things are. Just repeat the same sentence and don't try to out-smart police and prosecutors with technical tricks. (from reading discussions like thi…

(from reading discussions like this one on computer-oriented websites I have come to believe that nerds are especially easy to frame by a police man who recognizes a nerds innate desire to outsmart others, and to show it off. Look at where it got Hans Reiser).

I though framing someone means making it look like they did something when they didn't. As far as I know, Hans Reiser showed the police where he buried the body; how can you say he was framed?

Re: False confessions

#52

Post by roel_v »

tspiteri wrote: post #51
roel_v wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference between saying that and having it on a card. Plus if it's on a card it's going to have been taken away from you when you were booked, or you may not be allowed to take it, or whatever. Or it may be used against you in another way, as most physical things are. Just repeat the same sentence and don't try to out-smart police and prosecutors with technical tricks. (from reading discussions like thi…

(from reading discussions like this one on computer-oriented websites I have come to believe that nerds are especially easy to frame by a police man who recognizes a nerds innate desire to outsmart others, and to show it off. Look at where it got Hans Reiser). I though framing someone means making it look like they did something when they didn't. As far as I know, Hans Reiser showed the police where he buried the bod…

By 'frame' I meant 'manipulated into saying things', not necessarily things that aren't true, just that they didn't mean to say. Maybe it's not a 100% correct use of the word, I don't know.

What I meant was - Hans Reiser had a whole story pre-fabricated that, I assume, was internally consistent, but he relied a bit too much on that abstract property of the story in his defense (not that I know details of the case, just what I read about and remember from the news reportings on the case and the trial - I'm sure there is more nuance to that story than what I'm presenting here).

Re: False confessions

#53

Post by furyg3 »

tzs wrote: post #45
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.

You are standing at the end of the block. You hear a woman scream "help! he's taking my baby!", and look up to see two men push a woman violently to the ground, snatch a baby from a stroller, jump into a car, and drive up the street in your direction. They reach the intersection, where you get a good look at the men as they turn the corner. The drive halfway down the block, and turn into a driveway, pull into the gar…

Reporting a crime is a bit different than being questioned for one, but the point still stands that by talking to a police officer you are potentially risking a lot, and should take the situation very seriously.

"Which direction did they go?!?" "Which house is on fire?!" "Does he have a gun?!" are very different questions (with different moral obligations) than "What are you doing in this neighborhood so late at night?" "Do you live around here?" "Is this your car?"

Non-urgent questions and statements should be given in the presence of an attorney, recorded, and preferably on the condition of immunity :)

Re: False confessions

#54

Post by michaelschade »

wgren wrote: post #48
nikcub wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Frontline story was very eerie. The other famous case is the West Memphis Three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three Who were jailed partly because of a police-coerced confession from one of the three. They are still in prison, but apparently close to getting a re-trial. The case was made famous by the excellent HBO documentary 'Paradise Lost' - which is a must see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradi…

An interesting read is "Remembering Satan", about a small community torn apart by accusations of sexual abuse and satanic rituals. Many people confessed, some were convicted, no evidence was ever produced. http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Satan-Tragic-Recovered-Mem...

Wow, very creepy stories that both of you posted. Thanks for linking to them.

> They are lucky because their case has a high-profile because of the film - but there must be many, many other innocent people in prisons because of false confessions.

This is exactly what concerns me–so much effort and attention went into these few cases that achieved a high profile, but I'm certain that many just like it–with inconclusive or completely unmatched DNA and police hasty to close an investigation–exist, and it worries and saddens me to think how many other people are innocently sitting in prison or on death row as a result.

Re: False confessions

#55

Post by pavel_lishin »

derefr wrote: post #32

It'd be nice if [insert popular TV crime drama] would pick this up and run with it. We might start to see juries doubting confessions in the same way they've already been trained by the media to doubt non-forensic evidence.

The burden of proof has apparently been raised to ridiculous levels by CSI, according to some prosecutors. Juries believe that the sort of thing done on CSI is realistic, and they expect very definitive results and evidence, which usually doesn't happen.

Re: False confessions

#56

Post by pavel_lishin »

seabee wrote: post #19
splat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you.

Isn't that effectively the same thing?

Re: False confessions

#57

Post by takinola »

I used to think the whole false confession issue was bunk. I could not imagine confessing to a crime I did not commit for the obvious reason that there was simply no upside. However, this changed when someone I knew told me the story of how he found himself in a situation where he almost confessed to a crime. Here's the story

My friend, Bill, was in charge of construction projects at a real estate development. One night, he gets a phone call at 3 in the morning to let him know that one of the homes under construction is on fire. He jumps out of bed, grabs his camera and rushes out to scene of the fire. Once he gets there, he starts taking pictures in order to get a jump start on the insurance paperwork. Unfortunately, the firemen trying to put out the fire start to get suspicious. From their perspective, here's a strange guy taking pictures of burning homes at 3 in the morning (it's a development so there were no other occupied homes in the vicinity). They get to thinking maybe he is a pyromaniac who is now collecting trophy photos of his handiwork. They call the cops, Bill gets arrested and ends up in the interrogation room. Now, Bill is a pretty tough guy. Remember, he worked his way up in the construction business to become a manager so he is not a weakling by any means. However, after a couple hours of being grilled by the cops, he said he was just about ready to confess just to make it stop. They didn't beat him or anything, just the relentless application of all manner of psychological techniques (badgering, cajoling, threats of long sentences, good-bad cop, etc) completely wore him out. He was only saved when his boss found out that he had been arrested and called the station to back up his story.

From that time on, I realized that under the right circumstances, it is possible for a mentally stable, reasonable person to confess to a crime they did not commit.

More importantly, I realized that because I can't imagine something happening, does not mean it can not happen.

Re: False confessions

#58

Post by a3camero »

baddox wrote: post #23
StavrosK wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder for the officer to lie and say that you said something when you refused to say anything. It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.

How so? If your interaction with the cop wasn't recorded, even if you started out by saying "I choose to remain silent" and never said another word, the cop can easily testify that you said something. I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.

You don't know ahead of time what's going to happen. That's the key here.

Maybe they'll lie (probably not that common), or maybe what you said will somehow implicate you in a crime, or maybe...? That's why it's important. It's not after the fact knowing the police lied but beforehand when you don't know how things will play out that remaining silent is important.

Re: False confessions

#59

Post by a3camero »

suprgeek wrote: post #49

When I was reading the article, I was wondering when they would get to the role of interrogations especially aggressive ones. I cannot find the link now but there was a study which subjected people to sustained questioning that went on for more than 3 hours without a break. After 3(?) hrs all the subjects were offered the chance to end the interview if they agreed to deposit some non-trivial amount of money for 60 da…

Three hours? That's nothing for Canadian interrogations.

Here's a 2008 case (from the highest court in a major Canadian province) I found pretty quickly that's about a four and a half hour interrogation where the police lie about having DNA evidence that pins the crime on the person: http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22The+interview+...

Here's a 2000 Supreme Court of Canada case about an approximately eight hour interrogation (at which point the guy confessed): http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc38/2000scc38.... There are plenty more of these. There's no hard and fast limit to how long Canadian police can interrogate you for.

Re: False confessions

#60

Post by a3camero »

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 )

This is not the case in Canada! I'm sure it isn't the case in many other countries too.

Here's someone who said 18 times that he didn't want to talk to the police and asserted his right to silence. Appeal denied. Convicted of murder. 2007 Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+sil...).

"Whenever the discussion turned to the incident in question, however, Mr. Singh was less forthcoming. Although he provided some information regarding his presence at the pub on the night of the shooting, he repeatedly denied his involvement and asserted his right to silence. He indicated that he did not want to talk to the police, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, or that he wanted to return to his cell. Before Mr. Singh was shown the photographs in question and made the impugned admissions, he asserted his right to silence 18 times. Each time, the interviewing officer would either affirm that Mr. Singh did not have to say anything, or would explain to Mr. Singh that he had a duty or desire to place the evidence before him and he continued the interview."

Post reply on HN