Why Innocent People Plead Guilty: An Analysis of False Confessions and the Central Park Five Case
In 1989, five teenagers were convicted of brutally attacking and sexually assaulting a jogger in Central Park. Deemed the Central Park Five, these boys went on to serve around ten years in prison before being completely exonerated after the real criminal confessed and was a match to DNA evidence found at the original crime scene. [1] This legal mistake cost five people ten years of their lives, induced incalculable emotional damage, and has continued to impact these men’s opportunities. Originally, the five teenagers were arrested because they gave inaccurate descriptions of the crime. [2] Then, under the pressure of interrogation, four of the five boys confessed to the crime. [3] Today, we know the Exonerated Five — as they are now called — are innocent, so their confessions raise questions about the process that led them to profess false guilt. Although this may seem like a rare mistake in our legal system, false confessions are a prevalent obstacle to justice and account for around twenty percent of wrongful convictions in America. [5] The eventual exoneration of the Five brought to light several police malpractices, such as lying about evidence and coercive interrogation tactics, that occurred during their interrogations and may have contributed to their false confessions. [4] Legal reforms need to be implemented that ensure honorable interrogation tactics and fair treatment of suspects in order to minimize incidents of false confessions and ensure lawful convictions.
One prominent reason for false confessions is that police frequently lie about evidence during interrogations to get suspects to confess. One study found that police interrogators present fabricated evidence to suspects in around thirty percent of cases [6], perhaps in part because it is completely legal for officers to lie to suspects about evidence according to the 1969 Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp. [7] Although this can be an effective strategy for prompting confessions, this method has also been relentlessly used to pressure and guilt people into confessing to things that didn’t happen. Officers can also lie about whether other suspects have confessed and implicated each other in the crime. [8] In the Central Park Five Case, one boy was falsely told his fingerprints were found at the crime scene [3], and all five were told that the others had confessed and implicated them. [8] Presenting suspects with false evidence has been shown to be a main cause of false confessions. [9] Experiments have shown that presenting people with “false incriminating evidence can lead [them] to accept guilt for a crime they did not commit.” [10] This problem is even more severe when it comes to the interrogation of minors; juveniles “are about two to three times more likely to confess falsely during police interrogations” [3], plausibly as a result of their developing brains and increased susceptibility to social pressure. [8] To combat this issue, our legal system should ban police deception during interrogations of minors and other vulnerable populations to reduce false confession rates. [9]
Another main reason for false confessions is the use of coercive tactics during interrogations. This includes having overly long interrogations, using intimidation or forceful tactics, and isolating suspects from the outside world. When police interrogators use these methods, “an innocent person may [...] falsely confess because of increased stress, mental exhaustion, promises of lenient sentences, or challenges with understanding their constitutional rights.” [9] These coercive conditions lead to confessions made under duress and, therefore, may not reflect the truth. In the Central Park Five case, the four teenagers who falsely confessed were interrogated for up to sixteen hours before their confessions. [9] Research shows that “the reliability of confessions is greatly reduced after a prolonged interrogation” [9] because “sleep deprivation increases the likelihood that a person will falsely confess to wrongdoing that never occurred.” [5] Interrogations that are conducted for extended lengths of time yield information that is not fully reliable and should not be depended upon when deciding on suspects’ sentences. To solve this problem, there should be a limit on the length of time that interrogations can proceed without giving suspects breaks in order to maintain the reliability of confessions.
Finally, reduced interrogation reliability also occurs when investigators threaten suspects with a harsh sentence if they don’t confess. [11] One member of the Five was threatened with the death penalty and told the only way to avoid that sentence would be a confession. [8] Within two weeks after their interrogations, all members of the Five who had falsely confessed recanted their confessions and claimed that police coerced them into confessing. [2] Furthermore, children, people with intellectual disabilities, and people with language barriers are especially susceptible to these types of intimidation as they may lack a complete understanding of their constitutional rights. [9] Three states have adopted the policy that lawyers are required to be present during the interrogation of minors. [3] All states should adopt a policy requiring the presence of lawyers during interrogations of all suspects to help protect constitutional rights, prevent exploitation, and minimize rates of false confessions.
In addition to implementing a ban on police deception of minors, a limit on interrogation length, and a mandate requiring the presence of counsel during interrogations, our legal system should also adopt a policy that requires all interrogations to be fully recorded. In the Central Park Five case, “only the confessions were recorded on video—not the dozens of hours of interrogation that led to the confessions.” [3] This broader reform will “[improve] transparency and [create] a truthful record” of what led up to confessions. [9] When confessions are analyzed in court, a video record will allow the “voluntariness and credibility” of the confession to be assessed as well. [12] This law would also “increase accountability among police” and “deter their use of particularly coercive interrogation tactics.” [12] About twenty-five states have adopted a policy requiring electronic records of full interrogations, but this reform should be adopted in all states to combat police coercion and reduce false confession rates. [3]
To fully combat the prevalent issue of false confessions in our legal system, numerous reforms should be introduced that ban police deception of minors, limit interrogation length, allow lawyers to be present during questioning, and require the full recording of all interrogations. False confessions are problematic because they not only lead to the conviction of innocents but also allow criminals who are actually guilty to remain free, with the potential to commit more crimes. These reforms would not only minimize false confessions and reduce overall crime rates but also protect the freedom of innocent people by preventing them from getting pressured into making false admissions that ruin the rest of their lives.
Edited by Hanrui Huang
Endnotes
[1] “Central Park Five: Crime, Coverage & Settlement.” History.com, May 14, 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/central-park-five.
[2] Bentley, Drake, “What to Know about the ‘Central Park Five,’ Who Spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.” Journal Sentinel, August 23, 2024, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2024/08/22/what-to-know-about-the-central-park-five-who-speak-at-the-dnc/74910467007/.
[3] Storey, Kate, “Why the Central Park 5 Falsely Confessed to Rape - ‘When They See Us’ Shows The Disturbing Truth About How False Confessions Happen.” June 1, 2019, https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a27574472/when-they-see-us-central-park-5-false-confessions/.
[4] “Central Park Five Tragedy Reframed in Netflix Series ‘When They See Us.’” Innocence Project, April 23, 2023, https://innocenceproject.org/central-park-five-tragedy-reframed-in-netflix-series-when-they-see-us-2/.
[5] Frenda, Steven, Berkowitz, Shari, & Loftus, Elizabeth, “Sleep Deprivation and False Confessions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 8, 2016, https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1521518113.
[6] Eichen, Andrew, “Prevalence of lying to suspects during interrogations.” August 14, 2020, https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Eichen_Prevalence-of-police-lying_.pdf.
[7] Nieves, Jo-Anna, “Can the Police Legally Lie to You to Get a Confession?” Oakland Criminal Lawyer, March 26, 2024, https://thenieveslawfirm.com/can-the-police-lie-to-you/.
[8] “Five Facts about Police Deception and Youth You Should Know.” Innocence Project, May 13, 2022, https://innocenceproject.org/police-deception-lying-interrogations-youth-teenagers/.
[9] “False Confessions.” Innocence Project, May 1, 2023, https://innocenceproject.org/false-confessions/#:~:text=Research%20has%20shown%20that%20lying,with%20understanding%20their%20constitutional%20rights.
[10] Kassin, Saul & Kiechel, Katherine, “The Social Psychology of False Confessions.” https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/kassin_kiechel_1996.pdf.
[11] Hritz, Amelia, Blau, Michal, & Tomezsko, Sara, “False Confessions.” https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/FalseConfessions.html.
[12] Kassin, Saul, “False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2014, https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20(2015)%20-%20SIPR%20of%20confessions.pdf.