Confessor and Confessant

Brooks' The Confessor and Confessant shows how a false confession can be created even without torture. When torturing someone they torturer is inflicting some sort of physical or mental pain on the accused. They do this because they are assuming the accused is guilty. However, today police officers often assume the person they are interrogating is guilty as well. All though a false confession may not be as likely without torture as with it their still is a bigger chance when assuming the accused is guilty. This is because the cops can often use a non physical form of torture. This is because the law enforcement can be faced with tasks of needing a confession. An example of a situation where they need a confession would be if the case did not have enough evidence. This forces the cops to do the best they can to put the bad guy away, but they may sometimes try too hard and get a false confession. The Police often use a strategy that is known as "good cop, bad cop" this is of course where one cop seems like he wants to help you and the other seems like he is completely against you. Contrasting extremes has been shown to put a large amount of stress on people. Along with the nerves that anyone would have when being questioned by the police it is easy for "I'm nervous because I'm being heavily questioned by the police" to be interpreted as "I'm nervous because I was the one that killed that guy." The best way for the police to avoid false confessions is to be neutral, but is that the best way to get a confession when they need one?