Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

622 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
TRUE CONFESSIONS
There are many reasons why people would be reluctant to confess to crimes they
have committed. These include fear of legal sanctions, concern about one’s reputation,
not wanting to accept what one has done, not wanting friends and family
to know and fear of retaliation. In view of this it is perhaps surprising to find
that almost 60% of suspects in England make self-incriminating admissions or
confessions during custodial interrogation. Contrary to my previous prediction
(Gudjonsson, 1992a), the rate has not fallen following the implementation of
PACE. This finding is particularly important in that following PACE there has
been a dramatic increase in the use of legal advisers at police stations, a practice
that has grown from less than 10% in the mid-1980s to over one-third in the mid-
1990s. How can this be explained when the presence of a legal advisor is a significant
predictor of a denial? One possible explanation is that it is not the presence
of a lawyer itself that is of significance in ‘run-of-the-mill’ cases; rather it is characteristics
of those suspects who elect to have legal advice that is of importance.
It is evident from English research reviewed in this book that most suspects
enter the police interview having already decided whether or not to confess and
they stick to that position: only in the more serious cases where the interviews
tend to be longer and more pressured is resistance likely to be broken down.
A number of models about confessions have been reviewed. Each of the models
makes somewhat different assumptions about why suspects confess during
custodial interrogation, although there is considerable overlap between some
of the models. It is only recently that empirical studies have attempted to test
out specific hypotheses generated by the models. A number of studies have been
conducted so far and some general conclusions can be drawn about the reasons
why suspects confess to crimes about which they are interrogated. Factors such
as age and previous convictions appear to be related to readiness to confess,
but these variables should be studied in conjunction with other variables, such
as the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence against the suspect,
and access to legal advice. There is evidence that suspects confess due
to a combination of factors, rather than to one factor alone. Three general factors
appear to be relevant, in varying degrees, to most suspects. These include
internal pressure (e.g. feelings of remorse, the need to talk about the offence),
external pressure (e.g. fear of confinement, police persuasiveness) and perception
of proof (e.g. the suspects’ perceptions of the strength of evidence against
them). The single strongest incentive to confess relates to the strength of the
evidence against suspects. Furthermore, those who confess because of strong
evidence against them, and where there is an internal need to confess, appear
to be subsequently most content about their confession. Confessions that result
from police persuasiveness and pressure are likely to be retracted and seem to
leave suspects disgruntled and resentful.
In a follow-up study to our Royal Commission study (Gudjonsson et al., 1993),
we investigated the relationship between psychological variables assessed immediately
prior to interrogation and the likelihood of detainees’ subsequently
confessing to the police (Pearse et al., 1998). None of the tests predicted either
confession or denial. This finding is probably due to the fact that the police