Jones Angela M, Penrod Steven
School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA.
Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2017 Aug 31;25(2):257-272. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2017.1364677. eCollection 2018.
Evidence is mixed on whether or not laypersons have sufficient knowledge of false confession risk factors. Procedural safeguards such as judicial instructions may assist jurors who are unable to effectively evaluate confession evidence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of five conditions that varied in the quality of a confession and the presence of instructions on coercive interrogation techniques. The results indicate that instructions induce sensitivity by altering verdict decisions and perceptions of evidence strength and confession voluntariness in line with the quality of the interrogation. Furthermore, the presence of instructions in low-quality interrogations resulted in participants completely discounting the confession. These findings suggest that research-based instructions on coercive interrogation techniques may be an effective safeguard against the use of potentially unreliable confession evidence.
关于外行人士是否对虚假供述风险因素有足够了解,证据并不一致。诸如司法指示等程序保障措施可能会帮助那些无法有效评估供述证据的陪审员。参与者被随机分配到五个条件之一,这些条件在供述质量以及是否存在关于强制审讯技术的指示方面有所不同。结果表明,指示通过改变裁决决定以及根据审讯质量对证据强度和供述自愿性的认知来引发敏感性。此外,在低质量审讯中存在指示会导致参与者完全不采信该供述。这些发现表明,基于研究的强制审讯技术指示可能是防止使用潜在不可靠供述证据的有效保障措施。