Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Why do Suspects Confess? Empirical Findings 145
yet when the evidence against the suspect was strong those without previous
convictions were significantly more ready to confess (78%) than those with previous
convictions (59%). It is difficult to interpret these findings. It may be that
it is the fear of going to prison that deters some suspects from confessing rather
than previous convictions per se. As seen in Chapter 3, Pearse et al. (1998) found
that it was not whether or not suspects had a previous conviction, or the mean
number of previous convictions, that was important in predicting a confession
or a denial. It was a previous prison experience that was associated with a
reduced confession rate.
One American and two English studies have found no significant relationship
between previous convictions and the rate of confession among criminal
suspects (Leiken, 1970; Phillips & Brown, 1998; Zander, 1979), and two
English studies found an unexpected positive relationship between the rate
of confession and previous convictions (Baldwin & McConville, 1980; Mitchell,
1983). In the Phillips–Brown (1998) study, previous convictions did predict the
likelihood that suspects requested legal advice, but once these had been taken
into account then there was no significant relationship found for confessions.
Baldwin and McConville (1980) found that suspects with previous convictions
were more likely to make verbal or written confessions than suspects who
had no previous convictions. This was particularly true in their London sample.
Similarly, Mitchell (1983), in his Worcester study, found that suspects with
previous experience of the criminal process tended to confess more readily than
those without such experience.
What factors account for the discrepancy between these findings? Mitchell
(1983) suggests two possible explanations for the positive relationship he found.
First, he speculates that suspects with previous convictions may more readily
appreciate the advantages of confessing. Secondly, suspects with previous convictions
may be less equipped to cope with police interrogations.
With regard to the first point, Mitchell does not spell out what advantages he
has in mind for those who confess. For most suspects it is unlikely to be in their
own interest to confess, although this is not always the case (see Phillips &
Brown, 1998, on this point). The second point Mitchell makes seems rather
strange, because it is not at all clear why suspects with previous convictions
should find it more difficult to cope with the demands of police interrogation.
There are a number of possible reasons for this. They include the following.
� Suspects with previous convictions having been ‘traumatized’ by their
previous interrogation experiences and subsequently give in more easily.
(I have seen such cases, but it is doubtful that it holds for the majority of
suspects.)
� Those suspects who persist in crime possess certain idiosyncratic characteristics
(e.g. low intelligence) that make them generally less able to cope
with interrogative pressure.
� Suspects with previous convictions believing it is futile to deny their involvement
in crimes.
� Confessions may be easier to make after suspects have confessed once; e.g.
first offenders may find it particularly inhibiting to confess because their