People plead guilty or admit to crimes they didn't commit for various reasons. Certain interrogation procedures produce high rates of false confessions.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Sometimes we have to take measures to protect the innocent that we do not like. Severe interrogations are sometimes part of doing that.
If you have never been tortured, or locked up and verbally threatened, you may find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to something he had not done. Intuition holds that the innocent do not make false confessions.
There are, I believe, many more false confessions to murders than true confessions.
Confessions are not processed or analysed; they're told in a moment of desperation to a priest or to somebody interrogating you about a crime.
I have never worked on interrogation; I have never seen an interrogation, and I have only a passing knowledge of the literature on interrogation. With that qualification, my opinion is that the point of interrogation is to get at the truth, not to get at what the interrogator wants to hear.
Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.
When a person is found less guilty than he is suspected, he is concluded more innocent than he really is.
When a person is found not guilty, they're found not guilty.
You've gotta understand - when you interview someone, it's not an interrogation. It's not the Nuremberg Trials.
Many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test.
No opposing quotes found.