Confessions and Convictions
How Varying Types of
Confessional Evidence Affect
Conviction Rates
James Gentry and Jared Smith
Hanover College
Strength of Confessions
Individuals on a jury are more likely to
convict on the basis of a confession than
any other piece of evidence (Wakefield &
Underwager, 1998).
Confessions are considered extremely
powerful in obtaining convictions
Kassin, S. M. (1997).
Kassin & Neumann (1997).
Impact of Confessions
Much controversy has stemmed from a
rise of false confessions gained through
questionable interrogation tactics used by
authorities in the solicitation of a
confession (Kassin & Sukel, 1997).
Harmless Error Rule
Kassin & Sukel (1997).
Types of Confessions
Voluntary confession
Retracted confession
Coerced compliant false confession
Solicited via interrogation tactics
Coerced internalized false confession
Attained via victim’s internalization of crime
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (2004).
Research Question
This study was conducted to discern what
type of confession evidence yields the
highest rate of conviction when presented
to a sample of potential jurors.
Hypothesis
It was hypothesized that of the four types
of confession evidence, that the self
confession will yield the highest conviction
rate, whereas the false internalized
confessions will yield the lowest rate of
conviction.
Methods: Participants
Participants recruited via the internet and
completed study through Psychological
Research on the Net (Krantz, 2008)
N = 252 (F-158, M-94)
After 15 responses eliminated
Median Age - 24
Ages 18-62
Similarity of IV Across Conditions
Battery Crime
Accused and victim remained constant
across conditions
Confession was same across conditions
Approximate length of transcript
Voluntary confession
 On the night of Dec. 15th 2006… Mr. Lemke
was arrested at his residence for allegedly
beating his wife… Mr. Lemke’s interrogation
by the Jefferson County police lasted just
under an hour before he broke down and
voluntarily confessed to the crime. Mr. Lemke
admitted in his voluntary statement:
 “I did it. I just wanted her to stop! I’m so sorry.
I never meant for this to happen...”
Retracted confession
 After having confessed to the crime however,
Mr. Lemke decided to retract his “guilty” plea
made on the 15th, to a plea of “not guilty” on
the 22nd of the same month. To explain his
decision he stated he was in shock at the
time of his arrest and that he was not in the
right state of mind to make a plea of guilty. In
retrospect he is certain that though he and
his wife did argue that night, he did not beat
her.
Coerced compliant false confession
 Mr. Lemke’s interrogation by the Jefferson County
police lasted three hours before he finally confessed
to the crime. During the interrogation process, police
told Mr. Lemke that they had tangible DNA evidence
that directly linked him to the crime. They told him
that if he did not confess, he would receive a much
harsher sentence. It should be noted however, that
the police did not in fact have any such evidence.
Soon after hearing about the evidence, Mr. Lemke
admitted in his voluntary statement:
Coerced internalized false confession
At first, Mr. Lemke was very adamant
about his plea of not guilty. However, after
being confined in the interrogation room
for nearly 32 hours and being asked the
same questions over and over, Mr. Lemke
finally broke down and confessed to the
crime. By this time Mr. Lemke truly
believed that he had indeed committed the
crime.
Methods: Procedure
Consent form then instruction form
Sample confession
Conviction Stage
Punishment Stage
0-1 year; 2-5 years; 6-10 years; 11-15 years;
16-20 years
Demographic questionnaire
Debriefing
Conviction Rate Across Conditions
% of Guilty Verdicts
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Voluntary
Retracted
Coerced
Compliant
x²(3, N = 252) = 13.8, p < .001
Coerced
Internalized
Level of Punishment
Means of Punishment
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Voluntary
Retracted
Coerced
Compliant
F(3, 252) = 1.454, n.s.
Coerced
Internalized
Main Effect of Gender on Punishment
Level of Punishment
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Female
F(1, 252) = 4.295, p = .039
Male
Discussion
The results of this study indicate the power
of confession evidence in relation to
conviction rates.
 Hypothesis was basically supported
Females assigned harsher punishments
than their male counterparts
Limitations and Future Directions
Manipulate variables within transcript
Manipulate length of transcript
Manipulate gender of crime
Questions
?