Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York.
Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University.
Am Psychol. 2018 Jan;73(1):63-80. doi: 10.1037/amp0000141.
Eighty-seven experts on the psychology of confessions-many of whom were highly published, many with courtroom experience-were surveyed online about their opinions on 30 propositions of relevance to deception detection, police interrogations, confessions, and relevant general principles of psychology. As indicated by an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that several findings are sufficiently reliable to present in court. This list includes but is not limited to the proposition that the risk of false confessions is increased not only by explicit threats and promises but by 2 common interrogation tactics-namely, the false evidence ploy and minimization tactics that imply leniency by offering sympathy and moral justification. Experts also strongly agreed that the risk of undue influence is higher among adolescents, individuals with compliant or suggestible personalities, and those with intellectual impairments or diagnosed psychological disorders. Additional findings indicated that experts set a high standard before judging a proposition to be sufficiently reliable for court-and an even higher standard on the question "Would you testify?" Regarding their role as scientific experts, virtually all respondents stated that their primary objective was to educate the jury and that juries are more competent at evaluating confession evidence with assistance from an expert than without. These results should assist trial courts and expert witnesses in determining what aspects of the science are generally accepted and suitable for presentation in court. (PsycINFO Database Record
87 位精通认罪心理学的专家（其中许多人发表过多篇论文，许多人具有法庭经验）接受了一项在线调查，内容涉及与测谎、警方审讯、认罪以及相关心理学一般原则相关的 30 个命题的看法。至少 80%的专家表示同意，这表明专家们对于以下几个发现具有强烈共识，这些发现具有足够的可靠性，可以在法庭上提出。这其中包括但不限于以下命题：不仅明确的威胁和承诺会增加虚假认罪的风险，常见的审讯策略——即暗示宽大处理的虚假证据策略和最小化策略，也会增加虚假认罪的风险，这些策略通过同情和道德辩护来提供。专家们还强烈认为，在青少年、顺从或易受影响个性的个体以及智力障碍或诊断出心理障碍的个体中，受到不当影响的风险更高。其他研究结果表明，在判断一个命题是否具有足够的可靠性可以在法庭上提出时，专家们设定了很高的标准——而在“你是否会作证？”的问题上，标准更高。关于他们作为科学专家的角色，几乎所有受访者都表示，他们的首要目标是教育陪审团，并且在专家的协助下，陪审团在评估认罪证据方面更有能力，而没有专家的协助则不然。这些结果应该有助于审判法院和专家证人确定哪些科学方面是普遍接受的，适合在法庭上提出。
