Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Why do Suspects Confess? Empirical Findings 133
apprehending accomplices and clearing up other crimes. Having observed the
interrogation of 127 suspects and interviewed the detectives involved, the authors
found that interrogation was only necessary for solving the crime in about
17% of cases (Wald et al., 1967; Table F-6, p. 1585). They concluded:
Thus, even in a force as scientifically advanced as Los Angeles’, there is strong
evidence that confessions are of small importance, since arrests can be made only
where the crime is for the most part already solved because such substantial
evidence is available before interrogation (p. 1588).
In a more recent study, Leo (1996a) found that out of 182 cases observed, the
strength of the evidence against the suspect prior to interrogation was weak in
33% of cases and is unlikely to have led to a charge without a confession. Leo
concluded:
Suspects who provide incriminating information to detectives are significantly more
likely to be treated differently at every subsequent stage of the criminal process than
those suspects who do not provide incriminating information during interrogation
(p. 298, original author’s italics).
Leo found that suspects who incriminated themselves during interrogation
were 20% more likely to be charged by prosecutors, 24% less likely to have
their case dismissed, 25% more likely to have their cases resolved by plea bargaining
and 26% more likely to be found guilty and convicted. In addition, those
who had confessed received heavier sentences following conviction.
On the basis of the review the American literature, Cassell (1996a) estimates
that confessions are necessary for a conviction in about 24% of cases.
HOW COMMONLY DO SUSPECTS CONFESS?
Research shows that many suspects interrogated at police stations confess to
the crime of which they are accused. A further proportion of suspects make
self-incriminating admissions that fall short of a full confession. In ‘run-ofthe-mill’
criminal cases in England a confession or an admission typically
occurs at the beginning of an interview and the suspect typically sticks to his
chosen position throughout the interview irrespective of the technique used
(Baldwin, 1993; Evans, 1993; Irving & McKenzie, 1989; Moston, Stephenson &
Williamson, 1992; Pearse and Gudjonsson, 1996a; Pearse et al., 1998). This
strongly indicates that once the suspect enters the interview he has already
decided whether or not to make an admission or a full confession. Inbau et al.
(2001) claim the contrary in the USA. Their argument is that the great majority
of suspects initially deny their involvement in the offence, and with the assistance
of the Reid Technique of interrogation about 80% of the denials change
to a confession (see Chapter 1).
There is no empirical evidence to support these most extraordinary claims.
The statement is presumably used to impress upon the readers the high success
rate of the Reid Technique.