Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Why do Suspects Confess? Empirical Findings 135
denial in his calculation of the outcome of the interrogation. Forty-one (23%)
suspects fell into this group. The distinction here is between incriminating denials
and incriminating admissions. Both can be used against the suspect at
trial.
Second, another source of difference relates to the basis on which the suspects’
confessions are classified. The best methodology is to make the judgement
on the basis of typed transcripts that have been carefully checked for accuracy
against audio-taped interviews (Pearse & Gudjonsson, 1999). In England tapes
are not routinely transcribed and often only a summary is produced by the police
for judicial purposes. What researchers have tended to do when tapes are available
is to listen to the tapes and make a judgement on that basis (Baldwin, 1993;
Moston, Stephenson & Williamson, 1992; Pearse & Gudjonsson, 1996a). Other
researchers have been present during interviews and noted evidence of admissions
and confessions (Irving, 1980; Irving & McKenzie, 1989; Leo, 1996a). The
weakest methodology is to rely exclusively on the police records, because admissions,
confessions, and denials are not always accurately recorded in the
files (Evans, 1993).
Third, the rate of confession is higher in cases that reach court than those
that do not (Cassell, 1996a; Pearse et al., 1998; Phillips & Brown, 1998). Therefore,
focusing only on cases where there is a guilty plea and those that reach
court (see e.g. Baldwin & McConville, 1980; Bryan, 1997; Mitchell, 1983; Zander,
1979) undoubtedly gives a misleading and exaggerated picture of the overall
confession or admission rates. This has to be taken into consideration when
comparing confession rates across different studies.
Fourth, there are a number of other factors that can also make a difference
to the confession figures, such as adding to the figures suspects who are not
interviewed, which for obvious reasons deflates the confession rate figure. For
example, Cassell and Hayman (1998) included in their study 46 suspects who
were not interviewed by the police. This lowered the confession rate from 42
to 33%. The majority (61%) were not interviewed because they could not be
found for interrogation and in further 27% of cases there was already an overwhelming
case against the suspect. We do not know the likely confession rate
for the former group but the latter group would probably have had a high confession
rate due to the strength of the existing evidence against them. The only
legitimate cases to include in the figures are those where suspects could not
be interviewed because they invoked their Miranda rights at the beginning of
the interrogation, or in English cases, where suspects exercise their right to
silence.
There are important legal and cultural differences between America and
England with regard to suspects invoking their legal rights. For the American
police there are potentially serious consequences when suspects invoke their
Miranda rights, and between 4 and 78% do so, depending on the study (Leo,
1998). These are potentially more serious than English suspects requesting
legal advice and exercising their right to silence. When suspects invoke their
Miranda rights they effectively decline to give the police permission to interview
them and they are rarely interviewed subsequently (Cassell & Hayman, 1998;