Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The Psychological Assessment 325
inferences about an individual case, possible situational sources of suggestibility
must not be overlooked (see Chapter 14).
Persons with learning disability are often considered to be prone to making
false confessions because of their heightened suggestibility and eagerness to
please people in authority (Brandon & Davies, 1973; Craft, 1984). Their understanding
of questions and their ability to express themselves verbally in an
interview situation is limited (Keane, 1972; Sigelman & Werder, 1975). A particular
danger with regard to interviewing is to rely unduly on simple yes–no
questions, because persons with learning disability are likely to answer such
questions in the affirmative irrespective of content (Sigelman, Budd, Spanhel &
Schoenrock, 1981). Dent (1986) suggests, on the basis of her empirical study,
that the optimal interview technique for completeness and accuracy with
children who have learning disability is one that uses general rather than specific
questions. In contrast, normal children give the most reliable account when
asked to give free recall without using general or specific questions (Dent &
Stephenson, 1979). It seems, that when interviewing persons with learning disability,
exclusive reliance on free recall results in incomplete accounts. Therefore,
a certain amount of prompting is required in order to build on the sparse
details given in their initial free recall. However, because of the likelihood of
high suggestibility and acquiescence, interviewers should avoid asking specific
questions. Broad and general questions of a non-leading nature give the best
results (e.g. ‘What happened next?’ rather than ‘What did you do next?’).
The social context of police interrogation requires a complicated decisionmaking
process (Irving & Hilgendorf, 1980). It would be expected that suspects
of low intellectual abilities would be disadvantaged because their decisionmaking
would be principally directed towards immediate gratification (e.g. terminating
the police questioning, being free to go home) rather than careful
appreciation of the long-term consequences (e.g. prosecution and possibly conviction)
of their actions (see e.g. Menninger, 1986). This could in certain circumstances
result in their confessing to crimes they have not committed.
We do not know the number of persons with learning disability who are so
disadvantaged during interrogation that they make a false confession. There is
evidence that persons with learning disability tend to confess particularly readily
during custodial interrogation (Brown, Courtless & Silber, 1970). However,
little is known about the characteristics that make persons with learning disability
likely to confess falsely during custodial interrogation as opposed to
making a true confession. They would be expected, generally speaking, to have
fewer intellectual and social resources to cope with the demand characteristics
of the interrogation and confinement. However, the factors that make persons
with learning disability likely to confess falsely vary from case to case. We have
to look at the combination of factors rather than any one acting in isolation.
What is required is to identify specific vulnerabilities that are potentially relevant
and evaluate these in the context of the total circumstances of the case.
Just because a defendant has learning disability, it does not necessarily mean
that he or she is prone to making false confessions or erroneous statements
during interrogation. Each case must be assessed and considered on its own
unique merit.