The Death Penalty and False Confessions

Putting aside my own personal opinion of the death penalty, considering only the purpose of the justice system: to find the truth, the death penalty creates more danger than good. Here is why: -

Prosecutors choose whether or not they will seek the death penalty. There is no higher power to guide or check this decision. When faced with a crime for which they would not normally seek death, (perhaps because they don’t believe the jury would so decide and therefore don’t want to waste the expense of a capital trial), the prosecutor might still put the death penalty on the table to entice the suspect to confess. “If you tell us everything we won’t seek death, you’ll get to live. If you don’t talk, you will be executed.” They might even go into the gory details of the death the suspect might suffer through – how they are paralyzed and then suffocated… I digress. The point is, it’s used as a bargaining chip.

Personally I believe this is wrong in and of itself. But some might say – if the suspect is guilty what does it matter why or how he/she confesses? So I ask you – what if the suspect isn’t guilty?

Think it doesn’t happen? Imagine you are brought into the police station and accused of brutally murdering someone. The night of the event you were alone at home, you have no alibi. There was an eyewitness who not only described someone who looks just like you, but also picked you out of a line up. (I’ll have to go into the errors of eyewitness’s another time, or I’ll digress again). The police interrogate you for hours on end. An intelligent person might ask for an attorney, “If you’re innocent what do you need one for?” comes the response, at which point many waive their rights. The interrogation continues. You tell them you need a bathroom break; they make you wait until you’re busting. By now it’s been hours since your last meal, they grudgingly throw you a can of coke. You are sleep deprived. And here’s where it comes: ‘You did it, didn’t you?’ – You’re no longer sure what to believe, you’ve by now heard so many details of the crime you feel like you were there. ‘If you tell us about it, tell us what you did, we will make a deal for you. Otherwise you could face death.’

And this is before the Prosecutor is involved. The police don’t have the power to make such a deal. You are sleep deprived and running on the sugar and caffeine from the coke, you’re thoughts are blurred and you just want them to stop. “I did it! It was me!” you break. Don’t know what you did? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you. ‘You broke into that house and you stabbed that woman didn’t you?’ Maybe you hesitate, this has gone too far. ‘We know you did it. There’s no turning back now, you’ve said it yourself. Now if you want to save your life, you’re going to have to tell us what happened.’ And so you follow the lead, hoping at the end there’s a bed where you can rest.

In the 2002 decision of Atkins v Virginia the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the mentally retarded are susceptible to making false confessions due to their suggestibility and desire to please. The Supreme Court ruled it is Cruel and Unusual Punishment to execute the mentally retarded thus making it illegal. I believe though, that the risk extend beyond just those of a low IQ who are easily influenced. In a country without PACE (the British legislation governing powers of the police), trapped in an interrogation room, facing a reality of life and death, anyone can become easily influenced.

Perhaps I can make the situation all the more real to you with a true-life example. Take the case of Wayne and Sharmon Stock of Nebraska. In the late night of Easter Sunday 2006 they were murdered in their own home, each shot in the head. Initially their nephew, Matthew Livers and a friend of his were brought in for questioning. Matthew had a motive – there had been a dispute over money. The police interrogated them for hours. Matthew was given a polygraph test, he was told he failed. Eventually Matthew confessed, following police prompting. The next day, after some sleep, he recanted. “I was just telling you what you wanted to hear,” he explained. The trouble is – the damage is done. What jury is going to believe that an innocent person not only confessed to the crime but seemed to know so many details? Details the suspect likely heard about earlier on in the interrogation. More damning was – Matthew said he had been driving a tan car, not dissimilar to what an eyewitness said they had seen fleeing the crime, added to which he had had it cleaned within hours after his Aunt and Uncle had died. However, for a secure case, without ‘reasonable doubt’, the police need more. The CSI go over the scene and evidence again. All of a sudden one CSI, Mr. David Kofoed, finds a speck of blood in the suspect’s car. A speck of blood his coworker had apparently missed before. Low and behold the blood in the suspect’s car matches one of the victims.

Another item of evidence also turns up in this heated investigation – a ring, found in the kitchen of the Stock’s house, which belonged to neither the victims nor the suspects. The ring had an inscription, which lead the police to a Miss Jessica Reid. She’s brought into the police station and interrogated to within an inch of her sanity. Having established she was at the scene of the crime, they desperately want her to ‘admit’ that the other two suspects were also present. ‘I don’t know those men,’ she adamantly tells the police, pushing away the photos they keep thrusting in front of her. But the police are certain these men were involved, there’s DNA evidence linking them to the murders, and they want an airtight case. So they bring out the big guns: ‘Tell us the truth about these men and you won’t be executed.’ They have her attention. ‘You met them at the bar beforehand didn’t you?’
‘Sure.’ She agrees. She knows they have her, she was there, she witnessed her boyfriend, Gregory Fester, kill the husband and wife. Now all she can do is save her own life. She tells them whatever they want to know in order to protect herself from a possible death sentence.

Two men put on the chopping board so a guilty woman can save her life. All in the so-called name of ‘Justice’. But this isn’t how you find the truth.

Jessica confides in an officer from another district, “I don’t know those men. They made me say they were involved, but they weren’t.” And it all comes out – the drop of blood in the car tying the two suspects to the crime was planted by the CSI – he has been tried and convicted of this criminal act. Kofoed was famous in Nebraska for finding evidence when no-one else could, calling into question now every other conviction he had helped to obtain. He maintains he is innocent, and that perhaps the speck of blood got into the car by accidental transference during the investigation. Assuming he did do it, no one can believe it was a malicious act – he wanted to ensure two guilty men, whom he knew were guilty because of the confession, were put behind bars. However in so doing he perverted the course of justice.

So the bottom line is: people, whether innocent or guilty, will say anything that is asked of them in the face of death. Justice and the search for truth are not reliable under such circumstances. The only way to ensure their protection is to take such a bargaining chip out of the game.