CH115: Science of Crime

The concept of false confessions when thought into deeply can unveil many intricacies in the psyche and approaches that seek to exploit it. Initially, one might think Why would I lie saying I committed a crime? But it is far more complicated than that. There are many factors that play into the phenomena of false confessions which modern psychological science has dissected. In an episode of the Bear Brook podcast, “This Side of the Line”, the subject of false confessions and why someone might confess to a crime they never committed.

The Reid technique, hailed by law enforcement, stands at the forefront of interrogation methods aiming to coerce confessions out of people. This method is often seen in television shows and movies. It involves lying, whether about evidence or witness, or both, a plethora of questions, and being trapped in a locked room, with nobody who believes you. The law enforcement can say whatever they want to you, do they do. They tell you so many times what you are and what you did that you begin to think Why does it matter since they already think I did?

Additionally, enforcement can prompt a hypothetical of how the individual could have pulled it off. This enables police to work backward. With a culprit and mode already “discovered,” it is easy to allow biases to skew further involvement. This, along with other bombarding questions causes a very nerve-wracking atmosphere full of stress. This too can contribute to people’s likelihood of confessing.

This is what happened to Marty Tankleff. One day, Marty came home to his parents brutally murdered, and instead of sympathy, he was met with relentless pressure and manipulation by law enforcement. The lead detective coerced a confession out of Marty based on deceitful tactics and lies, playing on Marty’s being a teenager. Marty ultimately served 18 years of his 50-year sentence before exoneration.

The troubling fact about false confessions that has been shown here is how deeper factors within the psyche can attribute false confessions. This should continue to be a topic of lengthy discussion within psychology and within the justice system. Wrongful convictions ruin people’s lives, which is why although there have been many just convictions by these techniques, they should be employed in better, more likely situations.

(380)

Imagine being blamed for something you didn’t do, then questioned by the police until you feel like you have no choice but to confess. Sounds crazy, right? That’s what a false confession is; admitting to a crime you didn’t commit. Psychology helps us understand why this happens and how we can avoid it.
Sometimes, when someone’s questioned by the poolice for a long time, they start feeling so stressed that they might confess just to make it stop. It’s like when you’re taking a test and don’t know the answer, but you write something down just to finish. This pressure can make innocent people say things they don’t mean.Psychologists figured out that the way thepolice question someone can make a huge difference. When police use aggressive tactics or keep telling someone they’re guilty, it can make innocent folks feel trapped. Imagine being told you did something over and over you might start to believe it yourself.

One case that shows how dangerous false confessions can be is Huwe Burton’s. When he was 16, he got blamed for his mom’s murder, even though he didn’t do it. He was questioned for hours, and the cops kept saying they knew he did it. Huwe felt so stuck that he ended up saying things they wanted to hear, even though they weren’t true. He was in prison for 20 years before they found out he was innocent.
The good news is that psychologists are helping the police change their methods. They’re saying cops should ask more open-ended questions instead of just saying someone’s guilty. And they’re pushing for suspects to get a lawyer right away so they’re protected during questioning.
All this psychology is making us rethink how much we trust confessions in court. We’re starting to see that just because someone said they did something doesn’t mean it’s true. We need to look at the whole story, not just one part.
wrongful convictions emphasizes caution in our judgments, urging us to look deeper into the truth beyond initial impressions. This approach aims to prevent wrongful accusations and ensure that innocent individuals aren’t unjustly held accountable for actions they didn’t commit.

(359)

A false confession is when someone admits to a crime they in fact did not commit. You would be surprised how common this can be and under what circumstances. Psychological research has shown that false confessions can occur for many reasons, but mainly due to the actual interrogation process itself. One key aspect is the vulnerability of the person being interrogated. Some people, particularly those who are young, intellectually impaired, or experiencing high levels of stress, are more open to suggestions and pressure during questioning. The Reid technique is a perfect example of producing false confessions and is criticized by most people. It often involves accusatory tactics, unnecessary questioning as well as psychological pressure which can lead to individuals admitting to a crime only to end the stressful situation.

Innocent people confess to a crime they didn’t commit because they could be coerced, exhausted, or manipulated during the interrogation process. In addition, some individuals might have a strong belief that cooperating with authorities will lead to them being released even if they actually are innocent. In order to reduce false confessions there have been modern interrogation methods such as using open-ended questions or avoiding coercive and confrontational tactics. All of these methods aim to simply gather information without pressuring the suspect at all.

An actual case that involved a false confession is the Central Park jogger case in 1989. Five teenagers confessed to a brutal assault and rape but DNA evidence then later proved they were all innocent. All of their confessions were taken after long and coercive interrogations that eventually led each of them to falsely confess. Eventually, the true killer confessed and exonerated the wrongfully convicted teens. Cases like this highlight the importance of understanding the factors involved in a false confession and the need for interrogation techniques that gather accurate information and avoid coercive practices.

Its important not to analyze things within a vacuum. To do that, is to approach something without senses, without sight, without any contradiction.

The case of Sonja Farak is one of much contradiction, on conflicting ideals and of nuance. Many people might just look at her case, and decide she is guilty, she is evil and so on. However, it isn’t as black and white as the court of public opinion might want us to believe. Farak was the result of systemic failures. Yes she made poor decisions, yes she faltered, yes she could have imposed innocent people in drug cases, however, that doesn’t mean the burden falls seldom on her.

The situation has many influences, many factors. Firstly, lets begin with the war on drugs. Nixon in 71′ began the war on drugs, likely to incriminate specific groups of people that were against the Vietnam war: Black people and Hippy’s. While despicable, it isn’t specifically that that is relevant now. It is more related to the implications of the war on drugs: mass seizures of evidence and testing.

As an example, lets look a Annie Dookhan. Yes, despicable behavior, yes dry labbing (falsifying drug tests), but why did she do this. The sheer amount of drugs that are expected to be tested forces people into a position of immediacy, where they either make the wrong decisions, or fall behind, and are robbed of personal lives.

Back to the case of Farak, there wasn’t proof of falsification, merely proof that she took drugs while testing them. Lets, once again, forget what she did, and instead dive into why she did it. Imagine for a second a day in her shoes, you get to work break of dawn and are handed potentially hundreds of drugs to analyse. The level of monotony and tedious eye stressing work would be unfathomable. What would you do? Would you stay late? would you let the untested evidence pile up? Would you be okay being shouted at by your boss? or would you maybe do something else… take stimulants… dry lab…. How certain are you that your moral fiber can withstand the weight of an entire war on drugs?

Forensic science stands at the cornerstone of justice. It plays a pivotal role in legal proceedings and in evidence, often being crucial in determining a guilty or innocent verdict. However, what happens when the individuals entrusted with analyzing this evidence go rogue? This question is central to the case of Sonja Farak, a former chemist at the Amherst, Massachusetts Crime Lab.

Sonja Farak was responsible for the testing of drugs used in criminal trials, requiring objectivity and accuracy. Yet, beneath the professional image she put forward, Farak was leading another life. As a result of inadequate funding and insufficient oversight in the lab, there was much opportunity for exploitation. Farak, often finding herself alone in the lab, eventually succumbed to the temptations of the plethora of compounds, one specifically being methamphetamine. She began stealing and using from the laboratory, in an attempt to boost productivity.

She spiraled into addiction, furthering the breach of trust beyond taking unwarranted substances. Farak began taking drugs meant for testing, replacing them with other substances in attempts to cover her tracks, including cocaine. However, the repercussions of these actions caught up to her when one of her colleagues noticed missing samples while testing. This tampering of evidence also called into question the validity and integrity of many cases, raising concerns about inaccurate verdicts, wrongful convictions, and lives affected.

The revelation that a lab analyst could perform misconduct at this level astounds both the criminal justice system and me. It shined a light on the vulnerability of laboratories in how one person could cause so much fallout and compromise the entire evidence-gathering and analysis process. 

While there is most definitely the justification to point fingers at Sonja Farak for her actions, this issue does not stop at her. The lack of adequate funding, oversight, and protocols at laboratories provides a ripe environment for misconduct. Without barriers beyond personal perceived morality, I understand how Sonja could become intrigued by what she worked with. In college, she had done research on the effects of drugs on the body, and while it is not a good idea to steal and take illicit substances, I get how her curiosity could eat away at her. Ultimately, I believe both parties are to blame, and it is incredibly clear that the absence of diligent oversight allowed Farak to exploit the system and cause many unfortunate fallout.

(394)