False Confessions: The Central Park Jogger Case

There are many ethical implications to consider in terms of the proposal that states police officers are not permitted to use deceptive techniques in questioning people suspected of a crime. When these deceptive techniques are used, there are quite a few unethical techniques and outcomes used, including the use of fabricated evidence to gain a confession and false confessions given by suspects. If this proposal is put into action, there are quite few ethical outcomes to consider, especially in terms of those directly impacted and the impact it can have on the community.

Currently, there are many deceptive techniques that officers are permitted to use when questioning someone suspected in a crime. Some of these techniques include the use of

One of the most well-known cases of this type of false confession happening was during the Lindbergh Kidnapping investigation. During the investigation of this case, it was reported that more than two hundred people confessed to kidnaping Charles Lindbergh Jr., and some even knew that with this confession came notoriety. Coerced-compliant confessions generally occur when the suspect feels they can gain something out of confessing or to avoid having to go through an intense interrogation. A well-known case with a confession outcome like this one is the Central Park Jogger case. The suspects, five teenagers all under the age of eighteen, were interrogated for at least seven hours, without anyone else present. After going through this process, four out of the five suspects ended up confessing to the crime, because they were led to believe they could go home if they admitted they did it. Lastly, coerced-internalized confessions typically occur if the suspect is “anxious, sleep-deprived, confused, and subjected to a highly suggestive interrogation that often includes the presentation of false evidence” (McGrath, ScienceDirect Topics). When a suspect turns to this type of confession, interrogators can spot a weakness present in the suspect and take advantage of it, leading the suspect to be under the impression that

While they all may not use deception, there are a decent amount who do. These individuals would need to adjust their strategies and ways to get a confession from a guilty suspect.

This proposal does seem to be for the best of all the members of the community for a multitude of reasons. The first and ultimately main reason is because the ‘giant, looming cloud’ so to speak, is erased from the concept of interrogations. If more people knew that when they were brought in for an interrogation, there was not going to be fabricated evidence, promises that may not be upheld, or over exaggerations of the crime, they may not feel as nervous or anxious, given that they will genuinely be seen as innocent.

There is always the possibility that this proposal may not be a hundred percent efficient, but in theory it appears that it will be beneficial for more people than not. The false confession rate can be anticipated to decrease significantly, especially in coerced-compliant and coerced-internalized instances. If there are no promises being made, like the promise to go home if a confession is given, suspects will be less compelled to give in and say that they are guilty, even when they know they are not. Again, if there is no deception, innocent suspects or suspects who may be easily taken advantage of, will not begin to believe that they are indeed guilty of a crime that they inherently