Larry Craig and False Confessions
When Senator Larry Craig stepped into that bathroom stall on June 11th, he did not expect to emerge an unlikely poster child for false confessions. Senator Craig has since attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he was in a “state of intense anxiety” at the time of the confession. Craig’s attorney, Billy Martin, stated that Craig was not "thinking clearly, and he waived his constitutional rights, and we're asking that to be reversed”. Martin elaborated that Craig had been suffering severe "pressure" and "stress" from a recent interview with the Idaho Statesman newspaper over allegations that he was secretly gay and was panicked "from what this could do." The senator's attorneys plan to argue that the police officer who arrested Craig suggested that pleading guilty was "an easy way out" because he claimed he would not alert the media.
Craig’s strategy brings attention to the issue of false confessions. Saul M. Kassin, a psychologist at Williams College, classifies false confessions into three categories: voluntary, coerced-internalized and coerced-compliant. Voluntary false confessions differ from the other two types because they are given no outside influences. Most voluntary confessions are the result of the person wanting to become famous (or notorious), but they can also be caused by feelings of guilt over other incidents, the inability to distinguish fact from fiction, or to help or protect the real criminal. Coerced-internalized false confessions occur when the suspect comes to erroneously believe that they committed a crime because of information they are being told by the interrogators. Younger suspects, suspects who are tired, and highly suggestible individuals are most likely to fall victim to internalized false confessions.
Craig’s defense argues that his confession was in fact a coerced-compliant false confession. A coerced-compliant false confession is when the suspect confesses because he or she sees confessing as the only way out of a situation. The suspect makes the confession knowing it to be untrue because he or she wishes to escape a bad situation, avoid a real or implied threat, or gain some kind of reward.
As is pointed out on The Truth About False Confessions blog, there are a number of disturbing details surrounding the Craig confession. One is that the tape of his interrogation exemplifies the techniques that tend to lead to false confessions. On the transcript of Craig’s interrogation, Investigative Sgt. Dave Karsnia promises not to call the media if Craig cooperates. If an innocent person were in Craig’s position, it would not be unreasonable to consider pleading guilty if he or she believed doing so could make the incident “disappear.” Two is the quickness with which many have concluded that Craig must be guilty because he plead guilty. Upon the breaking of story, Craig was stripped of his Senate committee assignments and condemned by members of both parties.
The irony of the whole situation is that Senator Craig, who has a voting record viewed unfavorably by civil liberties organizations, now finds himself benefitting from their advocacy on his behalf. But, as written on the ACLU Blog, “you don’t have to endorse the civil liberties of other to keep your own."
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I am and have been an advocate for Marty Tankleff since I learned of his website, http://www.martytankleff.org at the time of Marty’s evidentiary hearing before SCJ Braslow in 2005. I am a retired New York State Police investigator who obtained many confessions legally and ethically. I believe that Marty’s confession is false. However, I do not believe for one second that Senator Craig’s confession was false. If I said that Marty Tankleff is innocent just like OJ Simpson didn’t really murder his wife, I lose credibility. That means that whatever work I have done to help free a truly innocent man goes down the drain. That is why I was an early advocate for the 3 falsely accused Duke lacrosse players who were being convicted in the press by the very same people who profess to be champions of justice. Yes, Senator Craig is being targetted by people who felt victimized by his public stances on social issues. I agree that these same people are pushing an agenda. However, I am not one of them. As a former police officer, I fully believe that there are serious problems with Senator Craig’s profession of innocence. I have spoken out publicly about police mlfeasance in the Tankleff case. Senator Craig’s case is far different from Marty. His explanation for his behavior simply stinks. I would argue that the misuse of police in trying to nab homosexual’s in an airport is grounds for a defense. I and most cops I know loathed that type of "sting" operations when there is much more serious crimes to investigate. However, I do not believe one word of Senator Craing’s explanation of his activities. If you pursue this line of reasoning, you and your organization will render yourselves completely useless in genuine cases of false confessions like that of Marty Tankleff.