Do the police usually get confessions when investigating homocides?

[zev_steinhardt]

From watching NYPD Blue for the last twelve years (yes, I’ve been with it since Day 1) and I’ve noticed that the detectives in the fictional 15th precint get confessions about 99% of the time (although it’s interesting that the series ended with a false confession!).

I know that NYPD Blue is fiction, of course; but OTOH, one of the producers was Bill Clark, who was an NYPD detective and who helped to maintain a degree of realism for the show.

That being said, do NYPD detectives really get confessions on the vast majority of homocides that they investigate?

Zev Steinhardt

[mhendo]

Good question, Zev. As someone else who was a 12-year fan of the show, it’s something that i’ve often wondered about too.

Of course, it always struck me as a little too convenient that:

a) In NYPD Blue, where the show is only about the detective squad, they nearly always get confessions.

but

b) In Law and Order, where the show is about detectives and the DA’s office, they only rarely get confessions.

[mks57]

I suspect that the needs of drama are at odds with reflecting reality. I’ve been watching a lot of CSI recently, and they seem to have their share of confessions that pop out of people’s mouths when confronted with the smoking gun.

I used to watch Perry Mason when I was a kid. I was always amazed at how people would give full confessions to the crime when they were just testifying at someone else’s trial. All it took was a vigorous cross-examination by Perry Mason.

[pravnik]

You would be astonished at the number of people who confess (or as the interrogating detectives put it, “make a statement”). You’d think somebody with nothing to gain and everything to lose would clam up, but police interrogators are very good at making you believe that talking to them is the only way you’re going to help yourself out of this horrible mess you’ve found yourself in. They understand, they just want to know what happened, they’ll put in a good word with the DA, and so on. My initial instinct is that yes, suspects do give confessions in most homicides. I asked my father what he thought, and his opinion was “oh, Hell yes.” I’ll try to find some studies or statistics on it.

[chrisk]

@mks57

I used to watch Perry Mason when I was a kid. I was always amazed at how people would give full confessions to the crime when they were just testifying at someone else’s trial. All it took was a vigorous cross-examination by Perry Mason.

Not just any vigorous cross-examination… he had to have figured out the crucial clue and hit on that, if I remember them right. But yeah, it’s a bit of a dramatic conceit.

I remember one of the only Perry Mason books I’ve ever read in full… it actually ended with the big murder trial not yet begun, and the trial that WAS held during the book ended ‘offscreen’ as it were and without any hugely climactic courtroom shenanigans.

Della had been arrested for concealing a witness… some guy who said he knew where this other (and much more important) witness had been… Della had indeed kept the police from finding the first guy that night, and by the time they did pick him up, the second guy had apparently split. Perry spent a lot of the trial asking the policeman who had first inspected the supposed abandoned ‘hideout’ of the second guy about the pattern of floury cat footprints on the floor and such.

[spoiler]Basically, he proved, to the cat owners who he knew were on the jury, that the first guy’s story didn’t hold water, that the second man had never been in the hideout, because if he had slept in the bed that the first guy said he had, the cat would have stayed there on the warm bed. Therefore, there was no second guy, and the first guy was not really a material witness, at least not in the way the police thought he was.

Perry got Della off, without the prosecuting attorney even figuring out how. They’re laughing about it at the book ends, and remarking on how if the DA manages to find that out, he’ll be able to focus on the first man and somehow that will lead him to the real solution of the case, though I can’t remember how.[/spoiler]

[pravnik]

Here’s a law review article footnote citing articles and studies done on the number of suspects who confess versus those who invoke Miranda:

It is reported that many viewers have criticized this aspect of the show as unrealistic [referring to the fact that most suspects seem to confess on NYPD Blue]. See Web Site FAQ at § 1.9. Actual statistics on the number of suspects who assert their right to counsel are hard to come by, and their interpretation is a matter of some controversy. Compare Paul Cassell, Miranda’s Social Costs: An Empirical Reassessment, 90 NW. U. L. REV. 387 (1995), to Stephen Schulhofer, The Fifth Amendment at Justice: A Reply, 54 U. CHI. L. REV. 950 (1987). See also Paul G. Cassell & Bret S. Hayman, Police Interrogation in the 1990’s: An Empirical Study of the Effects of Miranda, 43 UCLA L. REV. 839, 859 (1996) (citing the authors’ study showing that 16% of suspects questioned initially invoked their rights, about half of whom invoked their right to counsel. Another 4% assert a right to either silence or counsel after first executing a waiver of rights). NYPD Blue’s own consultant defends the accuracy of this aspect of the show. According to the FAQ, Bill Clark, an ex-NYPD homicide detective and show co-producer, says that suspects know their rights but that they go along with the detectives “out of naive optimism.” Further, the suspects are concerned that if they get a lawyer they will get stuck in the lock-up for at least 48 hours while the case is processed, and they are hoping that by talking they will short circuit the whole process. See Web Site FAQ at § 1.9, which is based upon an interview with Clark; email from Alan Sepinwall to Jack Beermann, July 9, 1998 (on file with authors). The FAQ also asserts that Steven Bochco’s previous hit cop show, Hill Street Blues, gave viewers the incorrect impression that suspects always get lawyers. In that show, Joyce Davenport, the public defender, was a major character, and each time a suspect was arrested, Davenport would immediately come to talk to him in the holding cell. In Clark’s view, NYPD Blue–in which lawyers are less accessible–is more realistic. See FAQ at § 1.9. Davenport, it should be noted, was in an intimate romantic relationship with the police captain, Frank Furillo. The legal ethics of such an arrangement are beyond the scope of this article.

The article is “Lawyering Up”, by Profs. Susan Bandes & Jack Beermann.

[Mr.Goob]

Fans of the old show Homicide life on the street could ask the same question after watching Frank Pembelton in the box.

I read the David Simon book Homicide that the series was based on. It talks about what really goes on how the police will try or say anything this side of the law to make you confess. Don’t saw a word and get a lawyer is the overwhelming advice. Even some of the cops are amazed how dumb people are and what they will admit to.

[Bricker]

Good grief, yes.

I hate to generalize, but as a class, arrested persons are not among the world’s shining intellects. Many confess, and of those that do not actually confess, many give conflicting stories that hurt them when the prospect of a trial looms. I would say that roughly half, if not more, of the people the cops arrest that were eligible for a public defender could have walked free if they had simply shut up and demanded a lawyer.

If all the n’er’do’wells were to do this, it would fundamentally change the justice system. I’m not kidding: the police don’t have the manpower to build all those cases without confessions, and the courts don’t have the trial slots necessary to take all those cases to trial.

But I suppose, if you’re sharp enough to realize this… you’re sharp enough to not commit petty crime in the first place.

[Nonsuch]

If you watch any of those “cold case/forensic files” documentary shows, lots of those suspects – I’d say the vast majority – end up confessing. I think being presented with strong evidence is a big factor: if they’ve got your fingerprints on the knife and your DNA under a body’s fingernails, it’s just a matter of time. Might as well get it over with.

Also, I read an article several months ago on interrogation that quoted an experienced NYPD detective notorious for getting confessions. What he said struck me as very powerful and insightful: “Everyone, deep down, wants to talk. Everyone wants to tell you their story.” I wonder if the human impulse to communicate, to connect with someone in a time of need, is too strong to resist even in a situation where it’s plainly not in your interest.

[Zsofia]

Keep in mind also that a whole lot of murders have more witnesses than you’d think just from watching TV. Somebody will always talk, and if not, a murderer can be persuaded pretty easily that somebody has talked or will talk.

[clairobscur]

Just an anecdote :

Some years ago, in a high profile case (the murder of two very young boys, apparently sexually abused and stoned to death), a young guy admitted to the murder during the police investigations. I later reputiated his confession, and his lawyer argued that being both a little dumb and very immature, he had admitted to the crime just so that the detectives would leave him alone. He was tried and sentenced.

Some years later, a detective enquiring about a famous serial killer found out was said serial killer was present in the same little town at the same time, and was admitted in a psychiatric hospital the following, as he usually did after his previous murders. He eventually also admitted to have seen the kids, but not to have killed them. The highest french court ruled that these new informations were sufficient to warrant a new trial of the previously sentenced guy.

Not only the guy was acquited during this second trial, but it emerged that he had not been the first, but the third person to admit to the murders. The two others had been cleared quickly because the police had found out they couldn’t be possibly present at the crime scene.

Not only the local police appeared incredibly efficient at getting confessions, but what striked me the most was the fact that none of the three suspects complained about the methods used. No brutalities or unlawful behavior from the police officers were mentionned by the former suspects . Just psychological pressure. At least, if these guys had complained about, say, being beaten up by the cops, it would make more sense…

This trial got me thinking : three different innocent people could admit to a murder they were innocent of just due to pressure in a police station. In other words, a confession (and in writen form and signed, as it is the norm under french law, so it’s not just a couple words they carelessly let out once) doesn’t necessarilly mean much.

I’m wondering how many people could do the same thing. Barring the use of torture, I can’t imagine myself admitting to an awful murder I’m innocent of, but still it makes you wonder…

A very close relative of mine is a police officer, so might ask him what he thinks about it someday, but since he’s essentially never willing to speak about his duties, I’m not sure I’ll even get an opinion from him…

[Gfactor]

The detectives who work the interrogation rooms are proud of their record in gaining confessions. Suspects admitted their involvement to detectives in 68 percent of all 1999 murder investigations that resulted in an arrest, according to case summaries in an internal report prepared by the homicide commander.

The Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News and Analysis

But see

Police have obtained confessions from men who, according to records, were in jail when the crime occurred. They have obtained confessions refuted by DNA evidence. They have obtained confessions that contradicted the facts of the crime.

Police have obtained scores of confessions from suspects especially vulnerable to making false admissions of guilt. Children ages 7, 8 and 9 have confessed, only to have the charges dropped. Mentally retarded men with IQs in the 40s, 50s and 60s have confessed, only to be acquitted.

Coercive and illegal tactics torpedo scores of Cook County murder cases

[mailman]

Zev–

I want to put in another plug for David Simon’s fantastic book “Homicide.” He was a reporter who floolwed a squad of detectives in Baltimore for at least a year, and then wrote a fascinating insider’s view of the job detectives do. If you liked NYPD Blue, make sure you read “Homicide.”

[Rube_E.Tewesday]

Another plug for the Simon book. Fascinating.

Also, it’s probably out of print, but obtainable through the Net – David Milch and Bill Clark’s “True Blue”, which tells about the early days of “NYPD Blue”, including some of the real cases that were the basis for a lot of episodes.

[Gfactor]

On the other hand:

The effect of Miranda was to dry-up voluntary confessions by immediately introducing defense attorneys into police investigations. For example,

* In Philadelphia, before Miranda 45 percent of all criminal suspects confessed to police officers, but afterward that figure dropped to about 20 percent.
* In New York City, the confession rate fell from 49 percent to 15 percent.
* In Pittsburgh, the confession rate among suspected robbers and murderers fell from 60 percent to 30 percent. 

Other cities reported similar declines, and researchers estimate that Miranda has reduced the nationwide confession rate by 16 percent. This is confirmed by comparing confessions in the United States with those in countries that use other approaches to regulating police questioning.

* In the U.S., police obtain confessions in perhaps 40 percent of all cases.
* However, in the United Kingdom, where advice of rights is limited, confession rates in the 1970s and 1980s were an estimated 61 percent to 85 percent.
* Even today in the U.S., confessions or other self-incriminating statements are crucial to convictions in about 24 percent of all criminal cases. 

That means that each year about 4 percent of all crimes - 28,000 violent crimes and 79,000 serious property crimes - go unpunished because Miranda discourages guilty suspects from confessing.

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/monthly/pd196c.html

[mhendo]

@Gfactor

On the other hand:
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/monthly/pd196c.html

Interesting statistics, although i don’t really believe that it warrants the phrase “On the other hand,” as if this were a bad thing.

I think it’s only bad if you believe that the burden of proving innocence should be on the accused, and that people should not be encouraged to exercise their legal rights.

[Flipshod]

@Bricker

I would say that roughly half, if not more, of the people the cops arrest that were eligible for a public defender could have walked free if they had simply shut up and demanded a lawyer.

If all the n’er’do’wells were to do this, it would fundamentally change the justice system. I’m not kidding: the police don’t have the manpower to build all those cases without confessions, and the courts don’t have the trial slots necessary to take all those cases to trial.

YES YES. Not to hijack, but yours is a very serious point worth pondering.

And, of course, the public defenders would have to rise up and actually demand trials.

[Gfactor]

@mhendo

Interesting statistics, although i don’t really believe that it warrants the phrase “On the other hand,” as if this were a bad thing.

I didn’t intend to take a stance. I was simply showing another perspective on the matter.

[mhendo]

@Gfactor

I didn’t intend to take a stance. I was simply showing another perspective on the matter.

My apologies. I guess i thought you were taking a sort of “as long as we get the bad guys, it doesn’t matter how we do it” position.