14.01.2013 Views

Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

406 A Psychology of <strong>Interrogations</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Confessions</strong><br />

consistent with the previous findings, the most striking differences between the<br />

two groups is in relation to Yield 2 <strong>and</strong> Shift, which links confessing behaviour<br />

primarily with the suspect’s ability to cope with pressure, rather than their<br />

tendency to give in to leading questions per se.<br />

It is worth noting that whereas alleged false confessors as a group are<br />

markedly higher on suggestibility <strong>and</strong> compliance than the average male in<br />

the general population, the resisters are in contrast unusually resistant to suggestions<br />

<strong>and</strong> interrogative pressure. Having said that, it should be born in mind<br />

that we are dealing with group means <strong>and</strong> there are clear individual differences<br />

within the respective two groups. For example, not all of the alleged false confessors<br />

proved highly suggestible or compliant; similarly, but less striking, not<br />

all of the resisters were low on suggestibility <strong>and</strong> compliance. This raises an important<br />

point, which should always be carefully considered by the psychologist<br />

or psychiatrist when carrying out a forensic assessment in cases of alleged false<br />

confession. The suspect’s ability to resist the police interviewer’s suggestions<br />

<strong>and</strong> interrogative pressure, when these are present, is undoubtedly due to the<br />

combination of situational <strong>and</strong> interrogational factors on the one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

suspect’s mental state, motivation, personality <strong>and</strong> coping style on the other.<br />

Figure 14.1 gives the suggestibility <strong>and</strong> compliance scores of three groups<br />

of subjects (Gudjonsson, 1991c). Here I compared the suggestibility <strong>and</strong> compliance<br />

scores of 76 alleged false confessors, 38 forensic patients who had<br />

not retracted their confession <strong>and</strong> still maintained their involvement in the<br />

crime <strong>and</strong> 15 criminal suspects or defendants who had been able to resist police<br />

interrogation in spite of other evidence against them on which they were<br />

Figure 14.1. Mean suggestibility <strong>and</strong> compliance scores of ‘false confessors’, ‘forensic<br />

patients’ <strong>and</strong> ‘resisters’

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!