Why is "inducing a confession, deceiving a confession, or accusing a confession" so scary?
First, the investigative agencies do not pay attention to it. The investigative agencies believe that eliciting confessions, defrauding confessions, and accusing confessions have existed since ancient times. They are only strategies and methods of investigation and evidence collection, and do not constitute illegal evidence collection. One investigator said: "Within 24 hours, either he collapsed or I collapsed."
Secondly, the parties and lawyers do not pay attention to it. During the author’s career as a lawyer, there was an incredible phenomenon. Many defendants retracted their confessions in court. The reason was that all investigators said that they had used torture to extract confessions, but they never did. No defendant said that investigators induced confessions, made false confessions, or made accusations.
Third, it is highly concealable. Words about inducement, deception, and accusations will not appear in the transcript. When recording, investigators will process their own words and those of the criminal suspect. It is formed according to the inherent template without leaving any flaws. Some investigators induce, deceive, and make confessions before the official transcript is made. The so-called laws and policies (lenity for confession, severity for resistance), etc., mean that the criminal suspect will be completely "conquered" before the transcript begins. .
Fourth, it is very deceptive. Many criminal suspects do not know in the end that they were tricked, deceived, or colluded into confessing. They think that the investigators have treated them well, such as the sketch of Uncle Benshan. There is only one explanation for this phenomenon, and that is that eliciting, deceiving, and accusing confessions are very deceptive, and their harmful consequences far exceed the directness and violence of torture to extract confessions.
Fifth, there are no traces. After torture is used to extract confessions, scars will be left more or less on the criminal suspects. Physical examinations will also be conducted when detainees are admitted to the detention center. However, after the induced confession, fraudulent confession, or accusation occurs, there is no trace at all, and it is impossible for investigators to leave evidence for their own records.
Sixth, no one intervenes. When the defendant submits an inquiry to the supervisory authority and the judicial authority about the possibility of induced confessions, fraudulent confessions, or accusations of confessions, the judicial authorities avoid investigating the induced confessions, fraudulent confessions, or accusations, and even A considerable number of judicial organs have been reduced to a place where confessions are induced, deceived, and accused. They are especially afraid that the defendant will retract his confession, which will prevent the trial from proceeding smoothly. In the court's judgment documents, there is almost no statement that "there is inducement, deceitful confession, or accusation". "Confessions will not be accepted", and in the cases that were remanded for retrial and revised sentences, there was almost no mention of the illegality of eliciting, defrauding, or accusing confessions.
7. Without remedial measures, illegal evidence is excluded. Do not induce confessions, deceive confessions, or accuse confessions. Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Use of illegal methods such as torture to extract confessions from criminal suspects, and the use of violence Any verbal evidence collected through illegal methods such as threats and threats shall be excluded. Article 95 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law explains "illegal methods such as torture to extract confessions" as follows: the use of corporal punishment or disguised corporal punishment, or the use of other methods to cause the defendant to suffer severe physical or mental pain or Painful methods are used to force the defendant to make confessions against his will. It can be seen that the parties involved are helpless against the investigators' behavior of inducing confessions, defrauding confessions, and making false accusations and frame-ups.
Eighth, it is difficult to reverse the case, especially in cases where convictions are based on oral confessions, such as drug trafficking cases, bribery cases, organizing and leading underworld organizations, etc.
We can see that faced with the strong psychological pressure and psychological offensive of investigators, and the fact that most criminal suspects do not have basic legal knowledge, it is easy to believe in the "teachings" of investigators. These "teachings" are like cardinals standing majestically in front of the penitent. They lack offensive and defensive capabilities.
One, induce a confession!
It refers to the act of inducing criminal suspects or criminal defendants to make confessions in improper ways based on the subjective intentions or inferences of investigators. Inducing confessions is good at concealing the intention and purpose of interrogation. It abandons the weakness of extracting confessions through torture and directly reveals the purpose of interrogation. It adopts a gradual strategy from shallow to deep, from the outside to the inside, step by step, so that the person being interrogated gives up his vigilance and feels that everything is irrelevant. The critical interrogation caused him to unknowingly fall into a trap according to the interrogator's design and he was unable to extricate himself.
Second, false confession!
It refers to investigators tricking criminal suspects into confessing.
For example, the investigators say, "So-and-so has confessed. If you don't admit it, the law can still convict you. If you have a bad attitude, it may be a little more serious." This is a technique commonly used by some investigators in interrogations. Maybe some cases are indeed solved through this method, but we must realize that this method of fraudulent confession can easily lead to false confessions. Because the person being interrogated will think that the co-defendant has confessed under the wrong prompt, that is to say, even if he does not admit it, he may be convicted, and if he does not "truthfully confess", he may be severely punished. Especially when the parties involved do not have legal knowledge and law enforcement officials use coercion and inducement, false confessions can easily lead to wrongful convictions.
The third is to confess!
Indicated confession means that investigators specify the confession of a criminal suspect based on his or her subjective intention. It often becomes an inevitable means for investigators to induce confessions. Inducing a confession may induce the criminal suspect to tell the truth, but making an accusation is even more harmful! Everyone has the mentality of avoiding the important and taking the easy, seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages. If investigators mislead criminal suspects, some people who do not know the stakes will inevitably tell lies against their will. Once a criminal suspect closely matches the "criminal facts" with evidence such as the time and place of the crime, the victim's statement, and the witness testimony, investigators will insist that this is a voluntary and true confession by the criminal suspect, and there is no inducement or deception in the confession. At this time, it is difficult for the judge to believe the defendant's excuse, and the defendant cannot prove the illegal behavior of the investigators, so an unjust, false, and wrongful conviction occurs.
The devil's interrogation methods commonly used by investigators (inducing confessions, deceiving confessions, and accusing confessions):
Inducing confessions: "If you do it honestly, you can go home right away. If you don't tell , you can’t go home, and we can’t help you! Because we all can’t eat and can’t go home, we are also working hard, you understand us, it is convenient for us, and we will provide convenience for you in the future.”