Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The Psychology of False Confession: Research and Theoretical Issues 209
rather than its truthfulness. The only exception to this rule was the unusual
mandate in the Norwegian case discussed in Chapter 23.
The psychological evaluation of a given case is normally based on a comprehensive
assessment of the defendant and the identification of relevant strengths
and vulnerabilities, the circumstances and nature of the relevant custodial factors
involved, the tactics and techniques used during the interrogation and the
content of the post-admission statement. No psychological technique is available
that will demonstrate with complete certainty the truthfulness of the confession.
What the psychological evaluation is sometimes able to do is to identify
psychological vulnerabilities or mental health problems, which, when placed in
the context of the totality of the circumstances in the case, cast serious doubts
on the reliability or trustworthiness of the confession. Each case must be considered
on its own merit.
The use of the polygraph in eliciting and evaluating the truthfulness of a
confession was discussed in detail in the Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions
and Testimony (Gudjonsson, 1992a) and will not be discussed further in
this book.
Whereas Inbau, Reid and Buckley (1986) ignored the phenomenon of false
confession, in the fourth edition of the book Inbau et al. (2001) provide a chapter
on how to distinguish between true and false confessions. This chapter provides
some valuable information and is a step in the right direction, although these
authors’ familiarity with the literature on false confession appears limited, and
the understanding of the psychological processes involved in false confessions
is in parts not sophisticated. The main limitation of their discussion is the reluctance
to accept that false confessions can and do occur without overt physical
abuse by police officers and in the absence of serious mental disorder. The general
impression one is left with after reading their chapter is that the authors
reluctantly accept that false confessions do occur and then minimize the frequency
with which they occur and the important role of police manipulation in
eliciting such confessions. The most valuable points that Inbau et al. make in
their chapter on false confessions are as follows.
� Confessions of people who voluntarily attend the police station and turn
themselves in should be viewed with caution. The motive and reasoning
given for confessing without being suspected of the crime will need to be assessed.
When there is good corroboration for the details given in the confession,
and when the person had previously confessed to the crime to relative
or a friend, this supports the validity of the confession. As discussed earlier
in this chapter, people do sometimes go the police station to confess in order
to protect the real culprit or if they are under pressure from the real culprit
to ‘take the case’. Nevertheless, such voluntary confessions may well
be true and this possibility should not be overlooked. I have come across
genuine cases of truthful confessions to serious offences, such as murder,
where the offender needed to ‘get the offence off his chest’ by confessing to
it, even several years afterwards.
� The confession should be viewed with caution when it lacks essential details
and corroboration, but it will need to be considered within the context of the