Why teens confess to crimes they didn't commit | Lindsay Malloy

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Carol Wang

Tyler Edmonds,

泰勒·艾德蒙斯、

Bobby Johnson,

巴比·強生、

Davontae Sanford,

戴馮泰·山佛、

Marty Tankleff,

馬堤·坦克利夫、

Jeffrey Deskovic,

傑佛瑞·戴斯柯維克、

Anthony Caravella

安東尼·卡拉維拉，

and Travis Hayes.

以及崔維斯·海斯。

You probably don't recognize their faces.

你們可能不認得他們的面孔。

Together, they served 89 years for murders that they didn't commit;

他們為自己沒有犯下的謀殺 所服的刑期，加起來是 89 年；

murders that they falsely confessed to committing when they were teenagers.

他們錯誤地承認在他們 還是青少年時犯下謀殺罪。

I'm a forensic developmental psychologist,

我是法庭發展心理學家，

and I study these types of cases.

我研究的就是像這樣子的案例。

As a researcher,

身為研究者、

a professor

教授，

and a new parent,

以及新手媽媽，

my goal is to conduct scientific research that helps us understand

我的目標是進行科學研究， 來協助我們了解

在為成人所設計的法律體制下， 孩子們會怎麼做。

how kids function in a legal system that was designed for adults.

In March of 2006,

2006 年三月，

police interrogated Brendan Dassey,

警方訊問了布蘭·登戴西，

a 16-year-old high school student with an IQ around 70,

他是位 16 歲的高中生， 智商大約 70。

putting him in the range of intellectual disability.

這樣的智商是屬於智能障礙的範圍。

So here's just a brief snippet of his four-hour interrogation.

以下是他在接受的四小時偵訊中 截取出來的簡短片段。

(Video) Police 1: Brendan, be honest.

（影片）警察一： 布蘭登，要說實話。

I told you before that's the only thing that's going to help you here.

我之前告訴過你，唯有誠實能幫你。

我們已經知道事情發生的經過，好嗎？

We already know what happened, OK?

Police 2: If we don't get honesty here --

警察二：如果你不說實話——

I'm your friend right now,

現在我是你的朋友，

but I've got to believe in you,

但我必須要能相信你，

and if I don't believe in you,

如果我不相信你，

I can't go to bat for you.

我就無法支持你。

OK? You're nodding.

好嗎？你在點頭。

Tell us what happened.

告訴我們發生的經過。

P1: Your mom said you'd be honest with us.

警察一：你媽媽說 你會對我們說實話。

P2: And she's behind you 100 percent no matter what happens here.

警察二：不論在這裡發生什麼事， 她都會完全支持你。

P1: That's what she said, because she thinks you know more, too.

警察一：那是她說的， 因為她也認為你知道更多。

P2: We're in your corner.

警察二：我們和你的立場是一樣的。

P1: We already know what happened, now tell us exactly. Don't lie.

警察一：我們已經知道事發經過， 現在告訴我們細節。別說謊。

Lindsay Malloy: They told Brendan that honesty would "set him free,"

琳賽·馬洛伊：他們告訴布蘭登， 誠實能「讓他得到自由」。

but they were completely convinced of his guilt at that point.

但在那個時候， 他們完全認為他是有罪的。

所以他們所謂的誠實，就是認罪。

So by honesty, they meant a confession,

and his confession would definitely not end up setting him free.

可以肯定的是，他的供詞 最後不可能讓他得到自由。

They eventually got a confession from Brendan

他們最終拿到了布蘭登的供詞，

that didn't really make sense,

內容並不合理。

didn't match much of the physical evidence of the crime

該犯罪的許多實體證據 大都和供詞不符，

and is widely believed to be false.

而且很多人認為那份供詞是假的。

Still, it was enough to convict Brendan and sentence him to life in prison

但在這起 2007 年的 謀殺與性侵害罪中，

for murder and sexual assault in 2007.

它仍然足以將布蘭登定罪， 判他終身監禁。

There was no physical evidence against Brendan at all.

完全沒有對布蘭登不利的 任何實體證據。

It was nothing more than his own words

只是他自己的認罪供詞，

that sent him to prison for nearly a decade,

讓他坐了將近十年的牢。

until a judge overturned his conviction just a few months ago.

直到幾個月前， 一位法官才推翻了他的定罪。

The Dassey case is unique because it made its way into a Netflix series,

戴西的案例很獨特 是因為它被拍成了網飛的影集，

called "Making a Murderer,"

叫做《製造殺人犯》。

which I'm sure many of you saw,

我相信在座有很多人看過。

and if you haven't, you should definitely watch it.

如果你還沒看過，你絕對應該要看。

The Dassey case is also unique

戴西案例的獨特之處同樣在於

because it led to such intense public outrage.

它造成了非常強烈的公憤。

People were very angry about how Brendan was questioned,

對於布蘭登被質問的方式， 大眾感到非常生氣。

and many assumed that his interrogation had to have been illegal.

許多人認為他的偵訊 應該是不合法的。

It wasn't illegal.

它並非不合法。

As someone who's a researcher in this area

我身為這個領域的研究者，

and is familiar with police interrogation training manuals,

加上我很熟悉警方的偵訊訓練手冊，

I wasn't really surprised by what I saw.

看到這樣的狀況， 我並不真的感到意外。

The fact is, Dassey's interrogation itself is actually not all that unique,

事實是，戴西的偵訊本身 並沒有很獨特。

and to be honest with you, I've seen worse.

老實跟各位說，我看過更糟的。

So I understand the public outcry about injustice

所以我能了解大眾會強烈抗議

布蘭登戴西這個案子中 所發生的不公正。

in Brendan Dassey's individual case.

But let's not forget that approximately one million or so of his peers

但我們別忘了，

美國每年會逮捕 大約一百萬名和他類似的人。

are arrested every year in the United States

and may be subjected to similar interrogation techniques,

這些人可能都會受到 類似的偵訊技巧對待，

techniques that we know increase the risk for false confession.

我們知道這些技巧 增加假供詞的風險。

And I know many people are going to struggle with that term,

我知道許多人對「假供詞」 這個詞有異議，

"false confession,"

我知道許多人對「假供詞」 這個詞有異議，

and with believing that false confessions actually occur.

而且他們相信 假供詞所敘述的確實發生了。

And I get that.

我能了解。

It's very shocking and counterintuitive:

這非常讓人震驚且和直覺不符：

Why would someone confess and even give gruesome details

為什麼會有人要招供， 甚至附上可怕的細節，

about a horrifying crime like rape or murder

宣稱自己犯下了 像強暴或謀殺的恐怖罪行，

if they hadn't actually done it?

但其實並不是他們做的？

那實在說不通。

It makes no sense.

And the fact is, we can never know precisely

事實是，我們永遠 不可能精確地知道

how often false confessions occur.

假供詞有多常發生。

But what we do know is that false confessions or admissions were present

但我們確實知道 大約 25% 的錯誤定罪

in approximately 25 percent of wrongful convictions

涉及假供詞或坦承。

of people later exonerated by DNA evidence.

後來當事人 因為 DNA 證據被免罪，

Turns out, they were innocent.

結果是他們是無辜的。

These cases are crystal clear because we have the DNA.

這些案例因為有 DNA， 所以可以非常肯定。

So they didn't do the crime,

所以，這些人並沒有犯罪，

and yet one-quarter of them confessed to it anyway.

但是當中卻有四分之一的人 仍然承認犯了罪。

And at this point, from countless research studies,

目前，根據無數的研究報告，

we have a pretty good sense of why people falsely confess,

我們已經相當了解 為什麼有人會做假供詞，

and why some people,

也能了解為什麼有人，

like Brendan Dassey,

像布蘭登·戴西，

are at greater risk for doing so.

做出假供詞的風險會更高。

We know that youth are especially vulnerable to providing false confessions.

我們知道年輕人 特別容易提供假供詞。

In one study of exonerations, for example,

比如，在一項關於免責的研究中，

only eight percent of adults had falsely confessed,

只有 8% 的成人會做出假供詞，

but 42 percent of juveniles had done so.

但 42% 青少年會 。

Of course, if we're just looking at wrongful convictions and exonerations,

當然，如果我們 只看錯誤定罪和免責，

we're only getting part of the story.

我們只看到片面。

Left out, for instance, are the many cases that are resolved by guilty pleas,

比如，我們漏掉許多 因犯人認罪就結案

not trials.

而沒經過審判的案件。

From TV and news headlines,

根據電視和新聞標題，

you may think that trials are the norm in our legal system,

你們可能會認為審判是 我們法律體制的基準，

but the reality is that 97 percent of legal cases in the US

但現實是美國有 97% 的法律案件

are resolved by pleas, not trials.

由認罪就結案，沒有經過審判。

Ninety-seven percent.

97%。

Also left out will be confessions to more minor types of crimes

我們還會漏掉輕罪的供詞，

that don't typically involve DNA evidence

通常沒有 DNA 證據，

and aren't usually reviewed or appealed following a conviction.

定罪之後通常不再被復審或上訴。

So for this reason,

因為這個原因，

many refer to the false confessions we actually do know about

許多人認為我們得知的假供詞

as the tip of a much larger iceberg.

只是更大的冰山的一角。

In our research, we found alarming rates of false confession among teenagers.

在我們的研究中，我們發現 青少年的假供詞比率很驚人。

We interviewed almost 200 incarcerated 14-to-17-year-olds,

我們訪談了近 200 名 被監禁的 14~17 歲青少年。

and 17 percent of them reported

當中有 17% 說

that they'd made at least one false confession to police.

他們向警方做出 至少一項的假供詞。

What's also shocking to most is that,

還有一項讓大部分人 感到震驚的事，

in interrogations in the US,

在美國的偵訊中，

police are allowed to interrogate juveniles just like adults.

警方是被允許把青少年 當成成人來偵訊。

So they can lie to them --

所以警方可以騙他們——

blatant lies like, "We have your fingerprints,

公然說謊，比如 「我們有你的指紋，

we have your DNA;

我們有你的 DNA；

your friend is down the hall saying that this was all your idea."

你朋友就在鄰近的偵訊室裡， 他說這事全是你主導的。」

Lying to suspects is banned in the UK, for example,

比如在英國，禁止對嫌犯說謊，

but legal here in the US,

但在美國這裡是合法的，

even with intellectually impaired teens like Brendan Dassey.

甚至可以對像布蘭登·戴西 這樣的智障青少年說謊。

In our research, most of the incarcerated teens that we interviewed

在我們的研究中， 接受我們訪談的被監禁青少年

reported experiencing high-pressure police interrogations

大部分說他們經歷高壓的警方偵訊，

without lawyers or parents present.

身邊並沒有律師或家長陪同。

More than 80 percent described having been threatened by the police,

超過 80% 說到 他們曾被警方威脅。

including with the possibility of being raped or killed in jail

威脅的內容包括他們可能 會在監獄中被強暴或殺害，

or being tried as an adult.

或被當成成人來審判。

These maximization strategies are designed

這些「最大化策略」是設計來

to make suspects feel like denials are pointless

讓嫌犯覺得否認是無意義的，

and confession is the only option.

招供是他們唯一的選擇。

So you may have heard of playing the role of "good cop/bad cop," right?

各位可能聽過 扮演「好警察和壞警察」吧？

Well, this is bad cop.

這就是壞警察。

Juveniles are more suggestible and susceptible to social influence,

青少年更容易接受暗示 以及受到社會影響，

like the intense pressure accusations and suggestions

比如來自偵訊中有權勢一方的

coming from authority figures in interrogations.

強壓指控和暗示。

More than 70 percent of the teens in our study said

我們的研究中， 超過 70% 的青少年說

that the police had tried to "befriend" them

警方試圖和他們「做朋友」，

or indicate a desire to help them out during the interrogation.

或是在偵訊過程中表示要協助他們。

These are referred to as "minimization strategies,"

這些被稱為是「最小化策略」。

and they're designed to convey sympathy and understanding to the suspect,

這個策略是設計來向嫌犯 傳遞同情和了解，

and they imply that a confession will result in more lenient treatment.

並暗示如果他們招供就能 得到比較寬大的待遇。

So in the classic good-cop-bad-cop oversimplification

所在警方偵訊中

常用的好警察 - 壞警察簡化後，

of police interrogations,

this is "good cop."

這就是「好警察」。

(Video) P1: Honesty here, Brendan, is the thing that's going to help you, OK?

（影片）警察一：布蘭登， 現在只有誠實能幫得了你，懂嗎？

No matter what you did,

不論你做了什麼，

we can work through that, OK?

我們都能想辦法處理，好嗎？

We can't make any promises,

我們無法做任何保證，

but we'll stand behind you no matter what you did, OK?

但不論你做了什麼， 我們都會站在你這邊，好嗎？

LM: "No matter what you did, we can work through that."

講者：「不論你做了什麼， 我們都能想辦法處理。」

Hints of leniency like you just saw with Brendan

像剛剛布蘭登接收到的 那種會寬大處理的暗示

are especially powerful among adolescents,

對青少年來說是特別強大的。

in part because they evaluate reward and risk differently than adults do.

部分原因是因為青少年和成人 評估獎賞和風險的方式不同。

Confessing brings an immediate reward to the suspect, right?

對嫌犯來說，招供馬上 就能帶來獎賞，對吧？

Now the stressful, unpleasant interrogation is over.

很有壓力且不愉快的 偵訊就會結束了。

So confessing may seem like the best option to most teens,

所以，對大多數的青少年來說， 招供似乎是最好的選項，

who are less focused on that long-term risk of conviction and punishment

他們比較不聚焦長遠的風險：

接下來的定罪和處罰，

down the road

as a result of that confession.

也就是招供的後果。

I think we can all agree that thoughtful, long-term planning

我想大家都能認同， 深思熟慮和長遠規劃

is not a strength of most teenagers that we know.

並不是我們所認識的 大部分青少年的強項。

And by and large, the legal system seems to get

總的來說，法律體制似乎了解

that young victims and witnesses should be treated differently than adults.

年輕受害者和證人應該要 受到和成人不同的對待。

But when it comes to young suspects, it's like the kid gloves come off.

但對於年輕嫌犯， 法律體系就沒有同樣的考量了。

And treating juveniles as though they're adults in interrogations

在偵訊中把青少年當作成人來對待

是一個問題，

is a problem,

because literally hundreds

因為確實有數百個

心理和神經科學研究告訴我們

of psychological and neuroscientific studies

tell us that juveniles do not think like adults,

青少年和成人的思考方式不同，

they do not behave like adults,

他們的行為模式也不同，

and they're not built like adults.

而且他們還沒有成年人的建構。

Adolescent brains are different from adult brains --

青少年的頭腦和成人的不同——

even anatomically.

連結剖學上都不同。

So there are important changes happening

所以在青少年時期，

in the structure and function of the brain during adolescence,

頭腦的結構和功能 會有重大的改變，

especially in the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system,

特別是在前額葉皮質 及腦部邊緣系統上。

and these are areas that are crucial for things like self-control,

這些區域對於自我控制、

decision-making,

做決策、

emotion processing and regulation

情緒處理及調節，

and sensitivity to reward and risk,

以及對獎賞和風險的 敏感度方面非常重要。

all of which can affect how you function in a stressful circumstance,

上述這些面向都會影響 你在高壓力的情況下的反應，

like a police interrogation.

比如在警方偵訊時。

We need to educate law enforcement,

我們必需教育執法人員、

attorneys, judges and jurors

律師、法官，以及陪審團，

on juveniles' developmental limitations

有關青少年的發展限制，

and how they can play out in a high-stakes interrogation.

以及在關係重大的偵訊中 這些限制所造成的影響。

In one national survey of police officers,

在一項對警察的全國性調查中，

75 percent of them actually requested specialized training

75% 的警察確實 有請求提供特殊訓練，

in how to talk to children and adolescents --

學習如何和兒童及青少年對談——

most of them had had none.

他們大部分都沒有過這方面的訓練。

We also need to consider having special protections in place for juveniles.

我們也得考慮設立 保護青少年的特定機制。

In his 91-page decision to overturn Dassey's conviction earlier this year,

今年推翻戴西定罪的那位法官， 在他 91 頁的判決書中，

the judge made a big deal about the fact that Dassey had no parent

特別大肆強調戴西沒有父母

or other allied adult

或其他站在他那邊的成人

in the interrogation room with him.

在偵訊室中陪同他。

So here's a clip of Brendan talking to his mom after he confessed,

以下這段影片，是布蘭登 在招供之後和他母親的對話。

when it was obviously far too late for him.

很顯然，對他來說， 當時已經太遲了。

(Video) Mom: What do you mean?

（影片）母親：你是什麼意思？

Brendan: Like, if his story is, like, different,

布蘭登：就像如果…… 說法不同的話，

like I never did nothing or something.

像是我從來沒有做這件事。

M: Did you?

母：你有做嗎？

Huh?

有嗎？

B: Not really.

布：其實沒有。

M: What do you mean, "Not really"?

母：什麼叫「其實沒有」？

B: They got into my head.

布：他們控制了我的腦袋。

LM: So he sums it up pretty beautifully there:

講者：他的總結很到位：

"They got into my head."

「他們控制了我的腦袋。」

We don't know if the outcome would have been different for Brendan

我們不知道如果 布蘭登的母親有在偵訊室中

if his mom had been in the interrogation room with him.

陪伴他的話， 結果是否會有所不同。

But it's certainly possible.

但肯定有可能不同。

In our research, only seven percent of incarcerated teens,

在我們的研究中， 只有 7% 受監禁的青少年，

most of whom had had numerous encounters with police,

當中大部分人都 曾經和警方有過數次接觸，

had ever had a parent or attorney in the room with them

在被當成嫌犯訊問的時候，

有父母或律師在房間中陪同。

when they were questioned as a suspect.

Few had ever asked for a parent or attorney to be present.

很少人曾要求要有父母或律師在場。

And you see this in lower-stake situations, too.

在較不嚴重的情境中 也有這種現象。

We did a mock interrogation experiment in our lab here at FIU --

在佛羅里達國際大學的實驗室中， 我們做了一項模擬偵訊實驗——

with parent permission for all minors, of course,

當然全都得到 未成年人父母親的同意，

and all the appropriate ethical approvals.

也取得了所有必要的道德倫理許可。

We falsely accused teens and adults of cheating on a study task --

我們故意錯誤指控青少年和成人 在一項研究工作上作弊——

an academic dishonesty offense --

一項學術詐欺罪行——

that we told them was as serious as cheating in a class.

我們告訴他們，這件事 和在課堂上作弊一樣嚴重。

In reality, participants had witnessed a peer cheat,

在現實中，參與者 曾目擊到一位同儕作弊，

someone who was actually part of our research team

這位作弊者其實 是我們研究團隊的人，

and was allegedly on academic probation.

宣稱他被留校察看。

And we gave everyone a tough choice:

我們讓每個人面臨艱難的選擇：

you can lose your extra credit for participating in the study

要麼你（自白而）得不到 參與這項研究的額外學分，

or accuse your peer,

要麼指控你的同儕，

who will probably be expelled because of his academic probation status.

他可能會因而被退學， 因為他已處於留校察看的狀態。

Of course, in reality, none of these consequences would have panned out,

當然，現實裡這些後果都不會發生，

and we fully debriefed all of the participants afterward.

事後我們向所有參與者 完整地匯報說明。

But most teenagers -- 59 percent of them --

但大部分的青少年—— 當中的 59%——

signed the confession statement,

簽了自白書，

falsely taking responsibility for the cheating.

背了作弊的黑鍋。

Only three teens out of 74,

74 位青少年中，只有 3 位，

or about four percent of them,

或是說大約 4%，

asked to talk to a parent when we accused them of cheating,

在我們指控他們作弊時， 會要求要和父母談，

despite the fact that for most of them,

儘管他們當中大部分人的父母

their parent was literally sitting in the next room during the study.

在研究過程中就坐在隔壁房間裡。

Of course, cheating is far from murder,

當然，作弊和謀殺的嚴重性差很多，

and I know that.

這我知道。

But it's interesting that so many teens, significantly more teens than adults,

但有趣的是，這麼多青少年， 遠多於成人，

signed the confession saying that they cheated.

會簽自白書說他們有作弊。

They hadn't cheated,

他們並沒有作弊，

but they signed this form anyway saying that they had,

但他們還是簽了那份 說他們作弊的文件，

rarely attempting to involve a parent in the situation.

極少在這情況下嘗試讓父母介入。

Other studies tell the same story.

其他研究也得到類似的結果。

Over 90 percent of juveniles waive their Miranda rights

超過 90% 的青少年 會放棄他們的米蘭達權利，

and submit to police questioning without lawyers or parents present.

在沒有律師或父母陪同的情況下 接受警方的訊問。

In England and Wales, interrogations of juveniles must be conducted

在英格蘭和威爾斯， 若要對青少年進行偵訊，

in the presence of an "appropriate adult,"

一定要有一名 「適當的成人」陪同，

like a parent, guardian or social worker.

比如父母、監護人，或社工。

And this isn't something youth have to ask for --

並不需要年輕人自己去索求——

which is great, because research shows that they won't --

這樣很棒，因為研究顯示 他們自己不會去索求——

it's automatic.

自動就會賦予他們。

Now, having an appropriate adult safeguard for juveniles here in the US

在美國，讓一位適當的 成人來保護青少年

would not be a cure-all for improving police questioning of youth.

不是能改善警方對年輕人 訊問方式的萬靈丹。

Unfortunately, parents often lack the knowledge and legal sophistication

不幸的是，父母通常 缺乏知識和法律修養，

to appropriately advise their children.

無法給予孩子適當的建議。

You can just look at the case of the Central Park Five:

看看中央公園五罪犯的案例就知道：

five teenagers who falsely confessed to a brutal gang rape in 1989,

五位青少年錯誤承認犯下 1989 年 一件不是他們做的殘忍輪暴案，

with their parents by their sides.

當時身邊還有父母陪同。

And it took over a decade to clear their names.

花了十年的時間才還給他們清白。

So the appropriate adult really should be an attorney

所以，適當的成人其實應該是律師，

or perhaps a trained child advocate.

或有受過訓練的兒童權益維護者。

Overturning Dassey's conviction, the judge pointed out that there's no federal law

法官在推翻戴西的定罪時指出，

聯邦法律並未要求警方 一定要通知青少年的父母

requiring that the police even inform a juvenile's parent

that the juvenile is being questioned

該青少年正被偵訊，

or honor that juvenile's request to have a parent in the room.

即使青少年要求父母陪同在場， 也未必得照做。

So if you think about all of this together for a second:

所以，如果花點時間 把所有這些資訊一併思考：

as a country, we've decided that juveniles cannot be trusted

我們這個國家已經決定了 我們不能信任青少年

with things like voting,

像是投票、

buying cigarettes,

買香煙、

attending an R-rated movie

看限制級電影，

or driving,

或開車這類事情，

but they can make the judgment call to waive their Miranda rights,

但他們可以做出判斷， 放棄他們的米蘭達權利，

rights that we know from research, most teens don't understand or appreciate.

從研究中我們知道大部分青少年 其實不知道也不了解這項權利。

And parents in the room: depending on the state that you live in,

至於偵訊時有父母在場 得要看你住在哪一州，

your child can potentially waive these rights without your knowledge

有可能你的孩子在你不知情

也沒先諮詢任何成人的狀況下 就放棄了這些權利。

and without consulting any adult first.

Now, no one -- and certainly not me -- wants to prevent police

沒有人想，我肯定也不想

from doing the very important investigative work

妨礙警方做非常重要的調查工作，

that they do every day.

他們每天的工作。

But we need to make sure that they have appropriate training for talking to youth.

但我們得確保他們適當地受訓， 知道如何和年輕人對談。

As a parent and as a researcher,

我自己是人母也是研究者，

I think we can do better.

我認為我們能做得更好。

I think we can take steps to prevent another Brendan Dassey,

我認為我們能採取步驟 來預防另一個布蘭登戴西事件，

while still getting the crucial information that we need

同時也還能夠從孩童和青少年身上

得到必要的關鍵資訊，

from children and teens

to solve crimes.

來偵破犯罪案。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）