Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:59:34.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Police interrogation of youth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

By
Allison D. Redlich  and
Steven Drizin
Edited by
Carol L. Kessler  and
Louis James Kraus
Allison D. Redlich
Affiliation:
Policy Research Association, 345 Delaware Avenue Delmar, NY 12054 USA
Steven Drizin
Affiliation:
357 E. Chicago Avenue Room 370 McCormick Chicago, IL 60611 USA
Carol L. Kessler
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York
Louis James Kraus
Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Get access

Summary

In legal parlance, “double jeopardy” refers to being held responsible twice for substantially the same crime. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution disallows this, essentially holding that the state only gets one bite at the apple. The term “double jeopardy” has also been used to describe several situations in which two characteristics or two circumstances place people at risk in the legal system, perhaps because of the double entendre. For example, Professor Thomas Grisso (2004) recently published a book, entitled Double Jeopardy: Adolescent Offenders with Mental Illness, citing that the combination of young age and the presence of mental health problems among justice-involved youth pose special problems for treatment in custodial settings, due process, and public safety. Similarly, a recent report to Congress was entitled Double Jeopardy: Persons with Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System (CMHS, 1995), examining the double-sided problem of the reactions of people with mental illness to the criminal justice system and the reactions of the system to this population.

In the present chapter, our focus is on two vulnerability characteristics – young age and mental health – that can place people in jeopardy in the interrogation room. The jeopardy that exists, and for which there are not suitable safeguards, is the risk of police eliciting false and coerced confessions. Moreover, once confessions or other guilty-knowledge statements are made, the risk of further miscarriages of justice, such as wrongful incarcerations and wrongful convictions, increases substantially.

Keywords

mental illnessmiscarriages of justicepolice interrogationpsychological manipulationyouth
Type
Chapter
Information
The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
Forging Paths toward Reintegration and Rehabilitation
 , pp. 61 - 78
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Billings, F. J.et al. (2007). Can reinforcement induce children to falsely incriminate themselves?Law and Human Behavior, 31, 125–139.Google Scholar
Bruck, M. & Melnyk, L. (2004). Individual differences in children's suggestibility: a review and synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 947–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C. A., Bottoms, B. L. & Levine, M. (1996). Linguistic and socioemotional influences on accuracy of children's reports. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J. & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: a historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CMHS (1995). Double jeopardy: persons with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. A report to Congress. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.
Cochran, S., Deane, M. W. & Borum, R. (2000). Improving police response to mentally ill people. Psychiatric Services, 51, 1315–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocozza, J. J. & Skowyra, K. R. (2000). Youth with mental health disorders: issues and emerging responses. Juvenile Justice, 7, 3–13. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
Davis, D. & O'Donohue, W. (2003). The road to perdition: “Extreme influence” tactics in the interrogation room. In O'Donohue, W., Laws, P. and Hollin, C., eds., Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: Basic Books, pp. 897–996.
Drizin, S. & Colgan, B. (2004). Tales from the juvenile confession front: a guide to how standard police interrogation tactics can produce coerced and false confessions from juvenile suspects. In Lassiter, G. D., ed., Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 127–162.CrossRef
Drizin, S. A. & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1008.Google Scholar
Drizin, S. A. & Reich, M. J. (2004). Heeding the lessons of history: the need for mandatory recording of police interrogations to accurately assess the reliability and voluntariness of confessions. Drake Law Review, 52, 619–646.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.Google Scholar
Everington, C. & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, J. & Zimring, F. E. (2000). The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969).
Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S. & Shaw, J. S. (1998). More than suggestion: the effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garven, S., Wood, J. M. & Malpass, R. S. (2000). Allegations of wrongdoing: the effects of reinforcement on children's mundane and fantastic claims. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, N., Condie, L., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D. & Geier, J. (2003). Juvenile offenders' Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, G. S. (1984). The child witness (special issue). Journal of Social Issues, 40, 1–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bulkley, J. & Shapiro, C. (1999). Innovations for child witnesses: A national survey. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 5, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisso, T. (1981). Juvenile's Waiver of Rights: Legal and Psychological Competence. New York: Plenum.CrossRef
Grisso, T. (1996). Society's retributive response to juvenile violence: a developmental perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisso, T. (2004). Double Jeopardy: Adolescent Offenders with Mental Illness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grisso, T. & Schwartz, R. (2000). Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J.et al. (2003). Juveniles' competence to stand trial: a comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, S., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D., Montgomery, N. & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523–556.Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. Chichester: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Bragason, O. O., Einarsson, E. & Valdimarsdottir, E. B. (2004a). Confessions and denials and the relationship with personality. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 121–133.Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F. & Einarsson, E. (2004b). The role of personality in relation to confessions and denials. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 125–135.Google Scholar
Hancock, L. (2003). Wolf pack: the press and the Central Park jogger. Columbia Journalism Review, January/February, 1–11.Google Scholar
Heide, K. M. (1997). Juvenile homicide in America: how can we stop the killing?Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 203–220.Google Scholar
Home Office (1995). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s. 66), Codes of Practice (revised edn.), London: HMSO.
Huang, D. T. (2001). “Less unequal footing”: state courts' per se rules for juvenile waivers during interrogations and the case for their implementation. Cornell Law Review, 86, 437–477.Google Scholar
In re Jerrell, C. J., 699 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2005).
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P. & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 4th edn. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Kaban, B. & Tobey, A. E. (1999). When police question children: are protections adequate?Journal of the Center for Children and the Courts, 1, 151–160.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassin, S. M. (2002). False confessions and the jogger case. (Opinion Editorial) New York Times, November 2002.
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: does innocence put innocents at risk?American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: a review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassin, S. M. & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassin, S. M. & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: the power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, H. R. & Weinberger, L. E. (1998). Persons with severe mental illness in jails and prisons: a review. Psychiatric Services, 49, 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, H. R., Weinberger, L. E. & DeCuir, W. J. (2002). The police and mental health. Psychiatric Services, 53, 1266–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, R. A. (1996a). Miranda's revenge: police interrogation as a confidence game. Law and Society Review, 30, 259–288.Google Scholar
Leo, R. A. (1996b). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.Google Scholar
Leo, R. A. (2004). The third degree and the origins of psychological interrogation in the United States. In Lassiter, G. D., ed., Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 37–84.CrossRef
Meissner, C. A. & Kassin, S. M. (2002). He's guilty!: Investigator bias in judgements of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, C. A. & Kassin, S. M. (2004). “You're guilty, so just confess!” Cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In Lassiter, G. D., ed., Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 85–106.CrossRef
Meyer, J. (2005). The effect of coercive and deceptive interrogation techniques on the reliability of young suspects' reports. Paper presented in N. D. Reppucci (chair), Testimony and Interrogation of Minors: Assumptions about Maturity and Morality. La Jolla, CA: American Psychology-Law Society.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Monahan, J. & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Myers, S. M. (2002). Police encounters with juvenile suspects: Explaining the use of authority and provision of support. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Project # 2000-IJ-CX-0039. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. (2005). http://www.ncmhjj.com/about/default.asp. Retrieved October 17, 2005.
National GAINS Center for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System (2001). The prevalence of co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders in jails. Fact sheet series. Delmar, NY: The National GAINS Center.
Pearse, J., Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I. C. H. & Rutter, S. (1998). Police interviewing and psychological vulnerabilities: predicting the likelihood of a confession. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 1–21.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, D. A. & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative Interviews of Children: A Guide for Helping Professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Poythress, N. G., Bonnie, R. J., Hoge, S. K., Monahan, J. & Oberlander, L. B. (1994). Client abilities to assist counsel and make decisions in criminal cases: findings from three studies. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S. & Redlich, A. D. (2000). Questioning the child witness: what can we conclude from the research thus far?Trauma, Abuse, and Violence, 1, 223–249.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D. (2004). Mental illness, police interrogations, and the potential for false confession. Psychiatric Services, 55, 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlich, A. D. & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: the influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M. & Steiner, H. (2003). Factors affecting pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., Chen, J. & Steiner, H. (2004). The police interrogation of children and adolescents. In Lassiter, G. D., ed., Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 107–126.CrossRef
Ruback, R. B. & Vardaman, P. J. (1997). Decision making in delinquency cases: the role of race and juveniles' admission/denial of the crime. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M. & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481–486.Google Scholar
Saywitz, K., Jaenicke, C. & Camparo, L. (1990). Children's knowledge of legal terminology. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurdsson, J. F. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996a). The psychological characteristics of false confessors: a study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 321–329.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, J. F. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996b). Illicit drug use among “false confessors”: a study among Icelandic prison inmates. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 325–328.Google Scholar
Snyder, H. (2004). Juvenile arrests 2002. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Steinberg, L. & Cauffman, E. (2001). Adolescents as adults in court: a developmental perspective on the transfer of juveniles to criminal court. Social Policy Report, XV, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, H. & Redlich, A. D. (2002). Child psychiatry and the juvenile court. In Lewis, M., ed., Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Textbook, 3rd edn. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins, Inc, pp. 1417–1425.
Tanenhaus, D. S. & Drizin, S. A. (2003). Owing to the extreme youth of the accused: the changing legal response to juvenile homicide. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 641–704.Google Scholar
Teplin, L. A. (1990). The prevalence of severe mental disorder among urban male detainees: comparison with the epidemiologic catchment area program. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 663–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K. & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viljoen, J. L., Roesch, R. & Zapf, P. A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between competency to stand trial, competency to waive interrogation rights, and psychopathology. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J. & Roesch, R. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellborn, J. (1999). Responding to individuals with mental illness. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68, 6–8.Google Scholar
White, W. S. (2003). Miranda's Waning Protections: Police Interrogation Practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Wilgoren, J. (2002). Confession had his signature; DNA did not. New York Times, August 26, p. A1.
Zimbardo, P. G. & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×