In March of 1995, Chicago police arrested four Black teenagers from the neighborhood of Englewood and accused them of the rape and murder of a local sex worker. After hours of interrogation, police told one of the teenagers, Terrill Swift, that if he just confessed, he could go home. And so he did. All four teens ultimately offered confessions that, while factually inconsistent, were sufficient to secure convictions and prison sentences ranging between 30-40 years, despite there being absolutely no other evidence tying them to the crime. The Englewood Four, as the group came to be called, was later exonerated by DNA evidence that surfaced in 2011.
Although often shielded from the public eye, police regularly misrepresent facts, offer false evidence, lie, and use deceitful tactics as part of the interrogation process. As an example, earlier this month, reports surfaced showing that Virginia Beach Police had a practice of presenting forged state documents to suspects linking their DNA to a crime scene. The purpose of such deceit is generally to back suspects into a corner and secure confessions.
Surprising to many, these manipulative tactics are usually perfectly lawful. The Supreme Court has granted police-wide latitude to use psychological ploys during interrogations, including falsely claiming that a suspect’s alleged accomplice has already confessed (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and falsely claiming that a suspect’s fingerprints were found at a crime scene (Oregon v. Mathiason, 1977). Various state court rulings have further expanded this power and permitted police to deceive suspects about virtually anything, from falsely claiming that incriminating DNA evidence exists to pretending that satellite photography captures the accused at the crime scene.
Many believe that false confessions are rare, perhaps reasonably assuming that no suspect would ever confess to something they hadn’t done. But psychological studies and real-world data expose this fallacy. Startling data collected by the Innocence Project shows that approximately 30% of all convictions overturned by DNA evidence were originally based on false confessions. False confessions are uniquely harmful to a suspect’s case, given that confessions are perceived by a jury as the most damning form of evidence (Kassin & Neumann, 1997).
Deceitful interrogation tactics are particularly insidious when used against juveniles. Studies have shown that juveniles are up to three times more likely to falsely confess than adults (Redlich & Goodman, 2003). This is due, in large part, to the immaturity of the still-developing adolescent brain.
Decades of neuroscientific research has confirmed that the pre-frontal cortex, an area of the brain commonly referred to as the “executive center,” and involved in the controlling of impulses, assessment of risk, and weighing of consequence, is still significantly underdeveloped in juveniles (e.g., Steinberg, 2004). In fact, it does not fully mature until around age 25.
An immature pre-frontal cortex, coupled with other neurodevelopmental factors such as increased dopaminergic activity in the limbic system, culminates in a juvenile mind that is uniquely susceptible to deceit, particularly under high-stress environments. This troublesome neurological dynamic was comprehensively summarized by Kassin et al. (2010) in an article cautioning the use of manipulative interrogation tactics against juveniles.
Interestingly, the neurological immaturity of the juvenile brain was at the crux of three seminal Supreme Court cases (1) outlawing the use of the death penalty for juveniles (Roper v. Simmons, 2005), (2) limiting the use of life imprisonment in juvenile sentencing (Graham v. Florida, 2010), and (3) banning statutory mandatory life imprisonment for juveniles (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). In each case, the Supreme Court relied on amicus briefs filed by the American Psychological Association opining that the juvenile brain is “less culpable” than that of an adult due to its still-developing pre-frontal cortex. Now, it’s time that we use this same understanding of the juvenile brain to outlaw the practice of deceit during police interrogations.
Earlier this year, Illinois became the first state in the nation to outlaw the practice of lying to juveniles during police interrogations. The new law zoomed through the Illinois Assembly with widespread bipartisan support, passing the Senate 47-1 and the House 114-0. Once deemed the “False Confession Capital of the US,” the Illinois criminal justice system is blighted by a checkered past including numerous high-profile exonerations of people who falsely confessed. Oregon passed its own law just days after Illinois, also prohibiting police from using deception while interrogating juveniles. In New York, a bill is currently being considered that would ban deceptive police interrogations for all ages. The New York bill was largely catalyzed by the state’s experience with the Central Park Five, who are now known as the Exonerated Five.