Interrogations, Confessions, and Guilty Pleas Among Serious Adolescent Offenders

Because of their developmental immaturity, adolescents are more prone than adults to confess falsely. Adolescents are more impulsive, susceptible to social influence and psychologically-manipulative techniques, and accordingly have a greater propensity to admit to offenses of which they are accused. To elucidate the situational risk factors that induce juveniles’ false confessions, this study interviewed 373 fourteen- to seventeen-year-old males who had been incarcerated in a California juvenile justice facility. Each participant answered thirty-four yes-or-no questions that assessed whether they had been exposed to various interrogation techniques. Participants also answered whether and for how long they had been questioned by police officers and lawyers. Rates of true admissions were higher than rates of false admissions, though over one-third of the sample openly admitted to having made a false admission to legal authorities. False confession rates exceeded those for youth in other countries. Participants falsely confessed to protect someone else or avoid a more severe punishment. A majority of participants revealed they had experienced high-pressure interrogations; those for whom the police refused rest or breaks were more likely to report having made a confession. Only false confessions were associated with long interrogations. True admissions were most commonly attributed to a desire to behave honestly. The study underscores the importance of reforming juvenile interrogation practices to promote voluntary, knowing, and intelligent admissions.

“As a minimum precaution, law enforcement should receive specialized training on questioning juvenile suspects. Surveys of law enforcement demonstrate that recognizing developmental differences between adolescents and adults does not imply that this knowledge is applied to the interrogation context. It is imperative that training not only identify developmental differences but also focus on how these differences may play out in the interrogation room.” p. 191