Abstract
In a laboratory experiment, 72 participants who were guilty or innocent of a mock theft were apprehended for investigation. Motivated to avoid prosecution and trial, they were confronted by a neutral, sympathetic, or hostile male “detective” who sought a waiver of their Miranda rights. Later, 72 other participants watched videotapes of these sessions and answered questions about the detective and suspect. Strikingly, results showed that although the detective's demeanor had no effect, participants who were truly innocent were significantly more likely to sign a waiver than those who were guilty. Naively believing in the power of their innocence to set them free, most waived their rights even in the hostile detective condition, where the risk of interrogation was apparent. The conceptual and policy implications of these results are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
REFERENCES
Blagrove, M. (1996). Effects of length of sleep deprivation on interrogativesuggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 48-59.
Cassell, P. G. (1996). Miranda's social costs: An empirical reassessment. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 387-499.
Cassell, P. G., & Fowles, R. (1998). Handcuffing the cops? A thirty-yearperspective on Miranda's harmful effects on law enforcement. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1181-1191.
Clymer, S. D. (2002). Are police free to disregard Miranda? Yale Law Journal, 112, 447-552.
Connery, D. S. (Ed.). (1996). Convicting the innocent. Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Dickerson v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 2326 (2000).
Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuringunderstanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212-220.
Fulero, S. M., & Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533-543.
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332-346.
Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.
Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions. London: Wiley.
Harris, v. New York, 401 U.S. 222(1971).
Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. A. (1996). Performance on a complex frontal lobeoriented task with “real-world” significance is impaired following sleep loss. Journal of Sleep Research, 5(Suppl. 1), 87.
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., & Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences And false confessions: A conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime and law, 9, 1-8.
Kamisar, Y. (1995). On the “fruits” of Miranda violations, coerced confessions and compelled testimony. Michigan Law Review, 93, 929-1010.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-233.
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I'm innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth & deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516.
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128.
Landers, P. (2000, October 6). A false confession jailed Mr. Yakushiji; then fate intervened. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A7-A8.
Leo, R. A. (1996). Miranda's revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law and Society Review, 30, 259-288.
Leo, R. A. (2001). Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1000-1029.
Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429-496.
Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda debate: Law, justice, and policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Leo, R. A., & White, W. S. (1999). Adapting to Miranda: Modern interrogators' strategies for dealing with the obstacles posed. Minnesota Law Review, 84, 397-472.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum.
Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344(1990).
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 53, 298-305.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 336(1966).
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649(1984).
Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714(1975).
Philipsborn, J. T. (2001, January/February). Interrogation tactics in the post-Dickerson era. The Champion, pp.18-22, 75–78.
Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141-156.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Schulhofer, S. J. (1996). Miranda's practical effect: Substantial benefits and vanishingly small social costs. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 500-564.
Softley, P. (1980). Police interrogation: An observational study in four police stations. London: Home Office Research Study, Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure Research Study.
Taylor, H. (2002, March 20). Nationwide love affair with NYPD has not changednationwide attitudes toward the police. The Harris Poll #13.
Weisselberg, C. D. (2001). In the stationhouse after Dickerson. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1121-1167.
White, W. S. (2001). Miranda's failure to restrain pernicious interrogation practices. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1211-1240.
Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zamble, E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). The criminal recidivism process. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1967, June). The psychology of police confessions. Psychology Today, 1, 17-20, 25–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Kassin, S.M., Norwick, R.J. Why People Waive Their Miranda Rights: The Power of Innocence. Law Hum Behav 28, 211–221 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5