social psychology and law

social psychology and law PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 155 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Download Presentation

social psychology and law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


1. Social Psychology and Law Interviews, Miranda, & Interrogations

2. The next three classes will be devoted to Psych and Law. This topic differs from the others discussed in the course. Psychologists use our basic theories and research skills to address issues relevant to the Legal field. We are using our knowledge as a toolkit to help inform another field rather than to better understand how humans think and interact. This is APPLIED psychology. The next three classes will be devoted to Psych and Law. This topic differs from the others discussed in the course. Psychologists use our basic theories and research skills to address issues relevant to the Legal field. We are using our knowledge as a toolkit to help inform another field rather than to better understand how humans think and interact. This is APPLIED psychology.

3. So…why bother studying this? ROCHESTER, NY; May 16, 2006 – DNA tests prove that Douglas Warney did not commit a murder in Rochester for which he was convicted and has served a decade in prison. In 1996, Warney was convicted of murdering William Beason in Rochester. Warney, who has a recorded IQ of 68 and a history of mental health issues, was convicted based almost entirely on a confession he gave police after hours of interrogation – even though the confession was riddled with inconsistencies, he had a history of making false reports to police, and the physical evidence at the time failed to link him to the crime. Warney was initially charged with capital murder, though he was ultimately sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. CLEVELAND, OH; January 26, 2007 - New DNA tests show that two men's convictions for a 1997 murder were based on fraudulent testimony from a City of Cleveland forensic analyst - whose false testimony also wrongfully convicted another man who was exonerated in 2001 and led to an audit of cases covering a 16-year period that revealed serious problems in at least a half-dozen convictions… Two quick, recent examples…Two quick, recent examples…

4. The Innocence Project Founded by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992 Works to… exonerate the wrongfully convicted through post-conviction DNA testing develop and implement reforms to prevent wrongful convictions. Only handles cases where post-conviction DNA testing can yield conclusive proof of innocence. http://www.ipmn.org/ - Innocence Project of MN Both of these are cases handled by The Innocence Project.Both of these are cases handled by The Innocence Project.

5. Innocence Project As of 12/2/07, 208 exonerated In first 130 exonerations 27% of those exonerated had confessed! 77% involved faulty eyewitness statements Roughly 160 active cases at any one time How many cases are there that DNA can’t help resolve?

6. Power of Confessions

7. Confession and the Courts “Our distrust for reliance on confessions is due, in part, to their decisive impact upon the adversarial process. Triers of fact accord confessions such heavy weight in their determinations that the introduction of a confession makes the other aspects of a trial in court superfluous, and the real trial, for all practical purposes, occurs when the confession is obtained. No other class of evidence is so profoundly prejudicial. Thus the decision to confess before trial amounts in effect to a waiver of the right to require the state at trial to meet its heavy burden of proof." - Justices Brennan and Marshall in Colorado v. Connelly (1986) The Court has a history of distrust for confessions. Unfortunately, this has never been the majority position. NOTE: Colorado v. Connelly (1986) found that an individual diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic acting in response to "command hallucinations" is competent to waive Miranda rights and his subsequent confession is voluntary and admissible - this quote is from the DISSENTThe Court has a history of distrust for confessions. Unfortunately, this has never been the majority position. NOTE: Colorado v. Connelly (1986) found that an individual diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic acting in response to "command hallucinations" is competent to waive Miranda rights and his subsequent confession is voluntary and admissible - this quote is from the DISSENT

8. Confession and the Court: Two Issues Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) Jurors can correctly evaluate confession evidence and, if necessary, assign it a weight of zero when factoring decisions of guilt and innocence. Confession evidence does not deserve special status. It’s just like all other evidence. The issue was subsequently addressed in Arizona v. Fulminante Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991) was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession. In 1982, the 11-year-old stepdaughter of one Oreste Fulminante was murdered in Arizona. Later, Fulminante was incarcerated for an unrelated crime. While in prison, Fulminante met Anthony Sarivola, a fellow inmate, who was also a confidential informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sarivola offered Fulminante protection from "tough treatment" in prison in exchange for a confession to the murder of Fulminante's stepdaughter. Fulminante agreed, confessing to Sarivola that he murdered his stepdaughter. As a result, Fulminante was charged with the murder, and his confession to Sarivola was used against him at trial. The trial court denied Fulminante's motion to suppress the confession on the basis that it was coerced because Fulminante might have been subject to violence in prison had he not confessed. Fulminante was convicted and sentenced to death, and appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which held that the confession was indeed coerced. Reasoning that a harmless error analysis was inappropriate in the case of involuntary confessions, the court nonetheless ordered a new trial. In a divided opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the state supreme court's finding that Fulminante might have been subjected to violence was sufficient to establish a finding of coercion, and therefore affirmed the reversal. In addition, the Court held that a harmless error analysis should nonetheless be applied to any allegedly coerced confession. In either case, the Court held that a new trial was warranted.The issue was subsequently addressed in Arizona v. Fulminante Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991) was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession. In 1982, the 11-year-old stepdaughter of one Oreste Fulminante was murdered in Arizona. Later, Fulminante was incarcerated for an unrelated crime. While in prison, Fulminante met Anthony Sarivola, a fellow inmate, who was also a confidential informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sarivola offered Fulminante protection from "tough treatment" in prison in exchange for a confession to the murder of Fulminante's stepdaughter. Fulminante agreed, confessing to Sarivola that he murdered his stepdaughter. As a result, Fulminante was charged with the murder, and his confession to Sarivola was used against him at trial. The trial court denied Fulminante's motion to suppress the confession on the basis that it was coerced because Fulminante might have been subject to violence in prison had he not confessed. Fulminante was convicted and sentenced to death, and appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which held that the confession was indeed coerced. Reasoning that a harmless error analysis was inappropriate in the case of involuntary confessions, the court nonetheless ordered a new trial. In a divided opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the state supreme court's finding that Fulminante might have been subjected to violence was sufficient to establish a finding of coercion, and therefore affirmed the reversal. In addition, the Court held that a harmless error analysis should nonetheless be applied to any allegedly coerced confession. In either case, the Court held that a new trial was warranted.

9. Testing Arizona v. Fulminante, part I Can jurors disregard confession evidence when they should?

10. Can jurors disregard confessions? Kassin & Sukel (1997) Students brought in as mock jury, read 24-page case transcript Case details Man accused of killing wife and male neighbor Man says he just found the bodies No murder weapon Man fled and called attorney before police Witness claims he saw accused flee with “what looked like a knife” Both accused and attacker were lefties, 6 feet tall Read the case details. Read the case details.

11. Kassin & Sukel, 1997 IVs Pressure to Yield Confession: High: physical discomfort and weapon brandished Low: immediate confession, no questioning Control: no confession - defendant and police officer testify Admissibility of Confession Judge allows despite defense attorney objection Judge sustains defense attorney’s objection Now, here’s the manipulation: The confession was either the result of high-pressure interrogation or low-pressure interrogation. And the confession was either ruled to be admissible or inadmissible. That is, it was always presented, but not always accepted into evidence by the judge. As a baseline condition, a group of Ps weighed in with all of the trial information but without any confession mentioned. This is what people should look like if they can appropriately weight confession evidence with a weight of “zero” if the situation merits it. Now, here’s the manipulation: The confession was either the result of high-pressure interrogation or low-pressure interrogation. And the confession was either ruled to be admissible or inadmissible. That is, it was always presented, but not always accepted into evidence by the judge. As a baseline condition, a group of Ps weighed in with all of the trial information but without any confession mentioned. This is what people should look like if they can appropriately weight confession evidence with a weight of “zero” if the situation merits it.

12. Kassin & Sukel, 1997 DVs Guilty/Not Guilty Confidence in Judgment Rate how important each piece of evidence was to making decision Including confession in 2 experimental conditions where it was allowed into evidence

13. Kassin & Sukel, 1997 Results Conviction Control group: 19% Sig less than all others Confidence More confident when confession present Only difference was between Control and all others combined Rating evidence Confession most important to decision

14. Ignoring Confessions Summary: Here, base rate conviction was 19% Conviction even under worst conditions was 44% High Pressure, Not Admitted A confession matters! Doesn’t matter if it’s admitted into evidence or not Doesn’t matter if it was obtained under duress or freely taken Participants said evidence obtained via high pressure should not be considered, and yet it CLEARLY mattered Clearly, just the knowledge that a confession exists, regardless of how it was obtained, has a powerful effect on how people perceive guilt and innocence. Clearly, just the knowledge that a confession exists, regardless of how it was obtained, has a powerful effect on how people perceive guilt and innocence.

15. Testing Arizona v. Fulminante Issue One: Can/Do jurors weigh confession evidence appropriately, giving it a weight of ZERO if necessary? NO!

16. Testing Arizona v. Fulminante, part II Are confessions just another piece of evidence? “The fundamental difference hypothesis” We already have some clue as to how this is going to play out, right? The last study showed that people rated confession evidence as the most influential when it was included in their “trial”.We already have some clue as to how this is going to play out, right? The last study showed that people rated confession evidence as the most influential when it was included in their “trial”.

17. Fundamental Difference Hypothesis Kassin & Neumann, 1997 – Study 1 Each P reads 4 trial transcripts: murder, rape, assault, theft Each case has either confession, eyewitness ID, character testimony, or nothing. Information given varies across cases, each case with one type of info DVs Individual verdict Likelihood the defendant committed crime 4 cases given to each person, each one has one type of information. Type of information in a given case counterbalanced across participants. Lets you say whether confession evidence matters more than other kinds of evidence, regardless of the type of case.4 cases given to each person, each one has one type of information. Type of information in a given case counterbalanced across participants. Lets you say whether confession evidence matters more than other kinds of evidence, regardless of the type of case.

18. Fundamental Difference (2) DV #1: Guilty/Not Guilty Confession evidence led to significantly more guilty verdicts in 3 of 4 cases (not theft) DV #2: Likelihood that person did it estimates parallel verdict findings Don’t worry about the actual values. The pattern is what matters. Notice that in 3 of 4 types of cases, confession evidence led to significantly higher conviction rates than did. Clearly, at least in serious cases, confession evidence IS NOT like other types of evidence!!!Don’t worry about the actual values. The pattern is what matters. Notice that in 3 of 4 types of cases, confession evidence led to significantly higher conviction rates than did. Clearly, at least in serious cases, confession evidence IS NOT like other types of evidence!!!

19. Two Issues Revisited Can jurors discount confessions? No! Tainted confessions seen as akin to legitimate confession Both different from no confession condition Is confession evidence just like other evidence? No! Confession evidence most potent of three important forms of evidence

20. To sum up… The legal system is far from perfect, even when no one intentionally misbehaves Confessions are hugely influential in jurors’ perceptions of culpability False confessions account for a large chunk of Innocence Project acquittals So, it’s important to understand how confessions are obtained, and how things can go wrong… Ok, so confessions are very powerful. What is the procedure that gets you to a point that you could actually confess?Ok, so confessions are very powerful. What is the procedure that gets you to a point that you could actually confess?

21. Steps towards confession The interview So, how do we get to the point that someone confesses?So, how do we get to the point that someone confesses?

22. First Step: Interview Interview v. Interrogation Interview Neutral in tone, designed for information gathering (stories) and eliciting behavioral responses Based on responses, investigators make decisions about guilt or innocence, and thus decide whether to proceed to an interrogation Interrogation is confrontational and accusatory

23. Interview Tactics: Reid and Associates Chicago-based firm established in 1947 Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation is the most widely used approach for questioning subjects in the world “Criminal Interrogation and Confessions” is the definitive text on interrogation techniques Have received praise by US government (contracts for research), US Supreme Court (Stansbury v. California, 1994), and NATO Here’s The Bible of interviewing and interrogation. Let’s see what it has to say.Here’s The Bible of interviewing and interrogation. Let’s see what it has to say.

24. Reid Techniques: Interviewing Importance of Privacy Allow individual to open up Examine Non-verbals: Hands Adaptor v. illustrator in context Bring hands in to body – adaptor – guilt Move hands outward – illustrator – innocent Beware of specific denials Don’t word questions so that people can play word games to answer honestly Couch burning v. home burning Beware of vague or reformulated answers that don’t mirror back questions “Drive company truck yesterday?” “Had no deliveries” Through Behavioral Analysis Interview, should be 85% accurate

25. Problems with Interviews Ambiguity of behavior Tom Sawyer – Florida Interrogated for sexual assault and murder b/c his face flushed in response to an interview question and detectives took that as an indication of guilt Turns out, Mr. Sawyer had Social Anxiety Disorder, which caused him to be exceedingly nervous and sweaty in social situations Simon, 1991, followed Baltimore police “Nervousness, fear, confusion, hostility, a story that changes itself – all are signs that the man in the interrogation room is lying….Unfortunately, these are also signs of a human being in a high state of stress.”

26. Interview Problems II: Investigator Response Bias Interview training is designed to teach you to identify guilt and innocence Does this training teach people to be objective, or does it lead them to be especially distrustful? Meissner & Kassin (2002) Meta-analysis of 6 studies

27. Investigator Response Bias Meissner & Kassin (2002) Effect of training and/or experience on tendency to see guilt Hits – proportion of deceptive persons correctly IDed as such False alarms – proportion of truthful persons IDed as lying

28. Meissner & Kassin 2002 Meta-Analysis DVs Discrimination Training did not significantly improve ability to discriminate between lying and truthful targets Response Bias Training led to significantly greater tendency to believe target was being deceptive Effect size = .3, which suggests a small to moderate effect. But INCREDIBLY important if you’re a false alarm!

29. Interview Summary Non-accusatory, non-confrontational process Questions designed to gather information and elicit behavior Behavior and answers used to assess guilt Training leads to tendency to overestimate guilt/lying Experience (in years) and special training both positively correlate with response bias (Meissner & Kassin, 2002)

30. Interview closing When asked, in 2004, whether he was concerned that his persuasive methods sometimes led innocent people to confess, Joseph Buckley, president of Reid and Associates, replied, “No, because we don’t interrogate innocent people.”

31. Talking with the police Why people waive Miranda So, clearly interviewing techniques are not perfect. We may think that the truth will set us free, but it may not be the case. As such, it may not be the best idea to talk to the police. That said, what leads people to talk to the police?So, clearly interviewing techniques are not perfect. We may think that the truth will set us free, but it may not be the case. As such, it may not be the best idea to talk to the police. That said, what leads people to talk to the police?

32. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Police must apprise suspects upon arrest of their right to silence and counsel Before Miranda, interrogation was “inherently coercive” Even with Miranda, there are problems with talking to police…Even with Miranda, there are problems with talking to police…

33. Circumventing Miranda 500 hours of interrogation observation across three police departments (Leo, 1996) Get person talking “outside” Miranda “Pre-interview” used to learn about suspect’s life, who he looks up to, parents, etc. Break up interrogation with irrelevant banter to make person more willing to respond to questions in general Present one’s self as an ally Present Miranda warning as formality Say it in a “yadda yadda yadda” tone Roughly 80% of suspects waive their Miranda rights!!!

34. Who has trouble comprehending Miranda? Adolescents under 14 Developmentally-delayed individuals The innocent! Individuals with no prior felony record are significantly more likely to waive their Miranda rights than are people with criminal justice “experience” Leo, 1996 Kassin & Norwick (2004) Does innocence play a role in waiving Miranda rights? Does presentation style of Miranda warning matter? Once again, the legal literature suggests a trend or effect, and social psychologists come in to critically evaluate it with the scientific method. Once again, the legal literature suggests a trend or effect, and social psychologists come in to critically evaluate it with the scientific method.

35. Miranda and innocence: Kassin & Norwick, 2004 The set-up Participants commit mock crime (or not) Steal $100 from drawer / open and shut empty drawer Neutral, sympathetic, or hostile Miranda reading Ps told to do what they had to, to protect themselves in interrogation Told that if not successful in convincing others of innocence, they would have to participate in trial and not receive credit for additional time. Not really interrogated; just decided whether to waive rights

36. Miranda and innocence:Kassin & Norwick, 2004 Results Innocent participants consistently waive their rights more often Doesn’t matter how the waiver is presented

37. Why waive Miranda if Innocent? Kassin & Norwick, 2004 Self-presentation “If I didn’t waive them, he’d think I was guilty” Irony is that it’s already a guilt-presumptive process The truth shall set me free “I did nothing wrong”, “I have nothing to hide” Observers agree!!! People watched video of interaction 46% said they would have waived their rights 65% said they assumed person in video would do so 79% in neutral, 71% in sympathetic, 46% in hostile

38. Steps towards confession The interrogation So, you’ve talked to the police, they’ve come back, and now you’ve waived Miranda and are talking to the police without a lawyer present… What does that look like?So, you’ve talked to the police, they’ve come back, and now you’ve waived Miranda and are talking to the police without a lawyer present… What does that look like?

39. Reid: minimization and maximization Kassin (1997) details Reid-recommended approach to interrogation 10 x 10 room with no barrier between suspect and interrogator

40. Interrogation Room Layout

41. Reid: minimization and maximization Uses a “rational actor” model Increase costs of not confessing and benefits of confessing Make it “logical” to confess, even if not guilty Minimize anxiety, get free of situation Make current pressures seem more important than subsequent outcomes Better to get out of the room and maybe go to jail than to stay in that place and continue to be berated… This makes sense, and may be quite effective. But we know from social cognition research that we’re not objective, rational decision makers most of the time. We use short cuts, are influenced by things that shouldn’t matter, pick up on social cues, etc. There’s more going on in an interrogation than just weighing the costs and benefits of confessing. This makes sense, and may be quite effective. But we know from social cognition research that we’re not objective, rational decision makers most of the time. We use short cuts, are influenced by things that shouldn’t matter, pick up on social cues, etc. There’s more going on in an interrogation than just weighing the costs and benefits of confessing.

42. Social Psychological Routes

43. Behavioral Confirmation Social worlds aren’t objective, they’re created Hastorf and Cantrill (1954) study Princeton-Dartmouth football Who was more aggressive? What happens when we’ve formed an impression of someone else? Remember, we only interrogate people we think are guilty

44. Roots of behavioral confirmation Snyder, Tanke & Berscheid, 1977 Can Person A’s beliefs about Person B cause Person B to act as expected? Does Person C pick up on the behavior? Results Yes, Person A can cause Person B to act differently, as rated by Person C Men shown picture of attractive or unattractive woman, told they would interact with her 3rd party rater listens to female side of conversation, rates women in “attractive” condition as more attractive, outgoing, fun, etc. How?

45. Behavioral Confirmation process

46. Behavioral Confirmation process

47. Behavioral Confirmation and Interrogation Questions Does expectation of guilt lead to hypothesis-testing questions and behavior? Do those being interrogated respond differentially based on interrogator’s expectations? Do interrogators take these answers as confirmation of initial expectation? So we know the general process has several steps. Do all of those steps pan out in an interrogation context?So we know the general process has several steps. Do all of those steps pan out in an interrogation context?

48. B.C. & Interrogation: Kassin et al., 2003 Students act as interrogator or suspect IVs Interrogator led to believe most suspects are guilty (or innocent) Suspect was either guilty or innocent of staged crime Procedure Interrogator given list of questions to ask Suspects told to deny, deny, deny

49. Kassin et al. (2003)

50. Kassin et al. (2003) Yes! Interrogators with guilty expectation choose more guilt-presumptive questions from list

51. Behavioral Confirmation process

52. Kassin et al. (2003) Yes! Suspects questioned by guilt-presuming interrogators acted significantly more defensive than those questioned by innocence-presuming interrogators Didn’t matter whether the suspect was actually innocent or guilty

53. Behavioral Confirmation process

54. Kassin et al. (2003) Yes! Suspects in guilty-expectation group more likely to ultimately be judged guilty by interrogators (42%) than those in innocent-expectation group (19%). Same pattern when it’s neutral 3rd party observers Interrogator not alone in perception, makes it more likely that he believes his first impression The Kicker: Interrogators tried harder when interrogating innocent suspects No innocent feedback, only signs of guilt

55. Behav. Conf. and Interrogation: Creating Suspects We talked about interrogation as a guilt-presumptive process But what if you come across an open-minded interrogator who isn’t sure whether you’re guilty? Unfortunately, interrogators may provide evidence of guilt to kick-start the process

56. Creating Suspects: Akehurst & Vrij How do guilty people act? Observers (students and pros) think that deception is associated with increased movement Think fidgety Actual deception is associated with decreased movement Too few resources to lie AND move? Liars are trying to control behavior to not give anything away?

57. Interactional Synchrony Ever catch yourself sitting like the person you’re talking with? What if you’re talking with a cop? Participant is either in possession of headphones or not Interviewed by lively or calm interviewer Lively interviewer JUST fidgeted with his pen Interrogation videotaped

58. Creating Suspects Results Effect on interviewee behavior: More nonfunctional movements (hand, arm, rocking, etc.) with lively interviewer Remember, just playing with pen 32 police officers view videotapes Police officers see interviewee as less credible in lively interviews

59. Influence and Interrogation

60. Authority in the Interrogation room Titles Higher status confers greater perception of height Officer seen as bigger, more powerful not un-useful in an interrogation situation Lower-status titles lead to less favorable treatment “Suspect” is not terribly flattering Clothing If investigator wears uniform, they will be regarded as more authoritative Reid & Associates recommend shirt and tie Authoritative but not smug

61. Authority in the Interrogation room Trappings Flash that badge; interrogation in police house brings authority to mind Think about false evidence How often do you stop and question what a recognized, legitimate authority says?

62. Reciprocity and Interrogation Reciprocity and liking Doesn’t matter whether you like the person; if you owe, you owe What if you’re offered a beverage or some food before or during the interrogation? More likely to comply with interrogator’s requests or be more forthcoming? Reciprocity kicks in even if we didn’t ask for the favor “Why don’t we go into this interrogation room, it’s less drafty so you’ll be more comfortable.” Interrogator is on your side AND you owe him

63. Reciprocity and Interrogation Reciprocity need not be equal in magnitude Think about what each participant in an interrogation can offer the other member Social roles and physical limitations dictate what we have to offer Coke for a confession? Reciprocal concessions Think about minimization “So maybe you didn’t mean to kill her. But you were mad at her, right?”

64. Reciprocity and innocence Reciprocity presumes that we feel disease at violating social norms Who is more likely to feel uncomfortable not “paying back” a kindly interrogator? Career criminal Upstanding and wrongly accused suspect People tend to feel more satisfied with an end-state if it comes from concession Feel like they “dictated” the terms of the agreement Feel like it was the outcome they actually desired

65. Interrogation summary So we only interrogate those we think are guilty Officers’ expectations and status affect interviewee behavior We can “create” suspects and make them do us a favor! We work harder to get a confession when the person is innocent Ultimately, this can lead to false confessions. Sometimes, people say what they need to in order to get out of the situation. These are coerced-compliant confessions. Other times, people come to believe what they’ve been told to say. These are called coerced-internalized confessions. Ultimately, this can lead to false confessions. Sometimes, people say what they need to in order to get out of the situation. These are coerced-compliant confessions. Other times, people come to believe what they’ve been told to say. These are called coerced-internalized confessions.

66. What to do? What if we videotaped interrogations? That way we’d know if the officers coerced a confession out of someone!What if we videotaped interrogations? That way we’d know if the officers coerced a confession out of someone!

67. Videotaping interrogation Sullivan, 2004 Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law Contacted 238 law enforcement agencies who video- or audio-tape confessions (38 states) Asked how the officers like using the technology Most if not all said they liked it Asked about perceive benefits…

68. Benefits of videotaping Prevent disputes about conduct and treatment Focus on suspect, not on note-taking Doesn’t limit confessions or cooperation For the defense: know EXACTLY what was said If you point our behavioral confirmation, does it lessen its effect on juror decision-making? Jurors as 3rd party observers in Snyder and Kassin studies

69. Costs of videotaping What are you filming? Focus of camera will seem more responsible for course of interview How long do you film? Confession only? Can we expect the jury to watch a full 6 hour interrogation? Does the jury know what to look for?

70. Questioning Summary Police training makes officers more suspicious, not necessarily more accurate People tend to waive their rights and enter into a guilt-presumptive interrogations The innocent are especially vulnerable Structural and psychological forces work towards eliciting confessions Juries treat confession evidence differently You confess, and that’s it. Even if it’s not admitted into evidence and was obtained under duress!

  • Login