Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Today’s Post suggests we rely too heavily on legal confessions:
In one experiment, Kassin asked volunteers to perform a challenging task on a computer but warned them not to touch the "Alt" key or risk damaging a computer. Volunteers were told that the computer had been damaged and were asked whether they hit the banned key. In reality, the volunteer did nothing wrong. Most volunteers denied it, but as the initial task they were given was made difficult, they became less sure because they were distracted. When researchers had confederates lie about having seen the volunteers hit the Alt key, the number of people who confessed went up to 100 percent. Every stage of increased pressure led ever larger numbers of volunteers to believe they were really guilty.
Confession Errors
I'm sorry if I came across as hostile. I wouldn't say you overplayed your evidence and I wouldn't call informal reports of systematic investigations "hearsay." I would call my information hearsay with great danger of selection bias.
I'm afraid that my evidence would not be admissible in court, since it counts as hearsay. Most of it comes from talking with people who do research in psychology & law, or watching them give presentations. Their sources include data on false confessions and training books for interrogators.
Interrogators are trained to extract confessions, as described in the following bullet point.
Glad to know my comments are appreciated, TGGP & Eliezer (and Robin in a previous post, I believe). At this point, I'd rather not put the time or commitment into blogging. I'm happy commenting occasionally, when I think I have something worth adding.