Cumulative Disadvantage: A Psychological Framework for Understanding How Innocence Can Lead to Confession, Wrongful Conviction, and Beyond

Abstract

False confessions are a contributing factor in almost 30% of DNA exonerations in the United States. Similar problems have been documented all over the world. We present a novel framework to highlight the processes through which innocent people, once misidentified as suspects, experience cumulative disadvantages that culminate in pernicious consequences. The cumulative-disadvantage framework details how the innocent suspect’s naivete and the interrogator’s presumption of guilt trigger a process that can lead to false confession, the aftereffects of which spread to corrupt evidence gathering, bias forensic analysis, and virtually ensure wrongful convictions at trial or through pressured false guilty pleas. The framework integrates nascent research underscoring the enduring effects of the accumulated disadvantages postconviction and even after exoneration. We synthesize findings from psychological science, corroborating naturalistic evidence, and relevant legal precedents to explain how an innocent suspect’s disadvantages can accumulate through the actions of law enforcement, forensic examiners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, juries, and appeals courts. We conclude with prescribed research directions that can lead to empirically driven reforms to address the gestalt of the multistage process.

The link between suggestibility, compliance, and false confessions: A review using experimental and field studies

“…Collectively, the present review provides a rather consistent picture in that especially high levels of suggestibility are risk factors for innocent people to falsely confess. This general finding fits well with the cumulative‐disadvantage framework put forward by Scherr et al (2020). This framework specifies the various processes that can make innocent people falsely confess to a crime.…”

“…Recently, these different factors have been synthesized in the cumulative‐disadvantage framework (Scherr et al, 2020). This framework stipulates different phases (e.g., precustodial interviews, custodial interrogations) containing several factors that might lead an innocent suspect to falsely confess leading to wrongful convictions.…”

Minimierende und maximierende Vernehmungstaktiken: Risiko falscher Geständnisse und sozialpsychologische Wirkmechanismen

“…Im Einklang damit fanden Luke und Alceste (2020), dass Versuchspersonen eine geringere Straferwartung hatten, wenn in einem Ermittlungsbericht mit Vernehmungsprotokoll a) die Tat moralisch heruntergespielt wurde oder b) explizite Versprechungen gemacht wurden (im Vergleich zu einer Kontrollbedingung). Redlich et al (2020) kamen zu ähnlichen Ergebnissen: Versuchspersonen, die eine Fallbeschreibung mit einem expliziten oder einem impliziten Versprechen auf Strafmilderung gelesen hatten, gaben dreimal häufiger an, dass der Beschuldigte gestehen sollte als in der Kontrollbedingung.…”

Wrongful convictions and forensic science

“…Indeed, many scholars and practitioners have recommended approaches to minimize cognitive biases in forensic casework to reduce the risk of error (see, e.g., Dror & Pierce, 2020; Krane et al, 2008; Thompson, 2009). For example, the linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach requires the analyst to first examine and document the evidentiary material before exposure to the reference material (e.g., suspect exemplars)—thus forcing the analyst to “[work] from the evidence to the suspect, rather than from the suspect to the evidence” (Dror et al, 2015, p.1111, see, also, Scherr, Redlich, & Kassin, 2020). The LSU approach is flexible because it allows the analyst to revise the initial judgment after exposure to the reference material—with limitations on the number of post‐exposure revisions, and documentation of the analyst's confidence in the initial judgment (Dror et al, 2015).…”