Why would innocent men make false confessions?

False confessions play a major role in two recent documentaries about wrongful convictions. West of Memphis examines the case of three young Arkansas men who were locked up for the horrific 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys. Perhaps the most powerful piece of the prosecution’s case was a confession by Jessie Misskelley describing in graphic detail how he and his two co-defendants beat, raped and mutilated the boys. The documentary, however, showed how the police could — after hours of intense interrogation, heavy with leading questions — manipulate and extract a false story from Misskelley, an unsophisticated young man with a low IQ.
The Central Park Five explores the notorious 1989 case in which five black and Hispanic teenagers were convicted of raping and beating a 28-year-old white jogger in Central Park. The men were found guilty of what New York’s mayor called “the crime of the century” and served as much as 13 years in prison. But all five of those convictions were overturned in 2002, after a murderer and serial rapist confessed to the attack.
An expert in false confessions, Saul Kassin, notes: “Once the confession is taken, it trumps everything else, it trumps DNA evidence, its effects cannot be reversed.”
But false confessions aren’t just a strange anomaly — they’re a phenomenon that’s beginning to get attention by criminal-justice experts and legal academics. In his book Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, looked at 250 cases in which innocent people were cleared by DNA evidence, including 40 in which there were false confessions. Garrett found that in many of the cases the defendants were young or mentally disabled. In none were the interrogations recorded, making it difficult to know what manipulative and coercive measures the police used.
Despite the increased awareness, it’s still extremely difficult to reverse a conviction once the defendant has confessed. In most instances, it comes down to relitigating the whole case, fighting once again over the testimony and circumstantial evidence used to convict. Cook County prosecutors are currently reviewing Daniel Taylor’s case. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn has been crusading for Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to undo what he calls Taylor’s “highly corrupted” conviction and set him free. As his advocates note, there is strong evidence of innocence beyond the fact that Taylor appears to have been in jail during the crime. Among other things, a co-defendant and other key witnesses have also come forward to say he was not involved. As for the confession, Taylor now alleges that the police used dishonest and coercive techniques.
In the past couple of decades, the rise of DNA evidence has shown the public in unmistakable terms that the criminal-justice system makes mistakes and that the wrong people are sometimes convicted. False confessions can be the toughest subset of these cases, but people are coming to recognize that sometimes defendants admit to crimes they did not commit. With increased awareness should come greater caution about how confessions are used at trial — and a greater willingness to overturn convictions when it becomes clear that a confession was untrue.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/
Jail alibi doesn't outweigh confession:
Chicago - Even before Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez formed her conviction integrity unit one year ago to deal with potential wrongful convictions, the case of Daniel Taylor had presented prosecutors with a particularly thorny problem: how to resolve a case in which Taylor, plus seven other young men, confessed to a double murder though records show he was in a police lockup when the crime occurred.
Twenty years after his arrest, Taylor's confession carries the day for prosecutors. Though much has been learned about why teenagers sometimes falsely confess — Taylor was 17 when arrested — prosecutors point to his long and detailed confession as the most powerful piece of evidence in the case.
For Taylor's attorneys, who returned to court last week seeking the right to continue to appeal his case, mounting evidence that shows he was in the Chicago police lockup at the old Town Hall precinct underlines their contention he could not have committed the crime at 8:45 p.m. on Nov. 16, 1992, as prosecutors charged.
The records show Taylor was arrested for disorderly conduct at 6:45 p.m., booked into the lockup at 7:25, had his charges approved at 9:45, and was released on bail at 10.
Others have taken note of Taylor's case. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed concern about the case, noting Taylor's powerful claim of innocence and questioning his confession. The Illinois attorney general's office has written of its concern that, for nearly two decades, prosecutors failed to turn over documents to the defense that buttress Taylor's alibi, an allegation the prosecutors deny.
That concern did not translate into immediate action, however. Instead, it has led Taylor, now 37 and having spent more than half of his life behind bars, back to Cook County Circuit Court, where prosecutors have suggested that the records showing Taylor in jail somehow are wrong.
In many ways, Taylor's case shows how difficult it is for a prisoner to win his freedom when DNA or other scientific evidence is not in play; indeed, even cases in which DNA is involved can be tough for inmates, particularly when confessions are at issue.
Taylor's case also has raised questions about the conviction integrity unit, which Alvarez announced last February amid criticism over how her office handled potential wrongful conviction cases.
Announcing the unit, Alvarez said it represented a "shift in philosophy" for the office and pledged to be more open to the possibility that police and prosecutors had sent an innocent person to prison. Alvarez, in her announcement, said the state's attorney's office was "about always seeking justice," not simply "racking up convictions."
"These cases are something that she takes very seriously," said Sally Daly, a spokeswoman for Alvarez. "She listens and expects a full accounting of the facts when these cases are being reviewed. She's committed to taking objective open-minded looks, and her record has shown that."
Taylor's attorney said his case, with its unusual but seemingly ironclad alibi, challenges Alvarez's claims.
"The evidence that prosecutors typically rely on — police officer statements, police reports, records — demonstrate that Daniel couldn't have committed the murders," said Karen Daniel, who is Taylor's lawyer and an attorney at Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions.
"Conviction integrity means not putting innocent people away, but also making sure that there's a fair and constitutional process. If these records weren't turned over to the defense, then Daniel Taylor's trial wasn't fair and constitutional, and Daniel's conviction has no integrity."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-06/news/ct-met-double-murder-questions-20130206_1_jail-alibi-confession-double-murder?goback=.gmp_1829117.gde_1829117_member_213262414
It's time to set Daniel Taylor free:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/02/alvarez-its-time-set-daniel-taylor-free.html?goback=.gde_1829117_member_213261963