In
Peter Brooks introduction of Troubling
Confessions, he describes the idea of modern confessions as dysfunctional.
Brooks believes that "we want confessions, yet we are suspicious of them."
This is because truth and confessions do not always go hand in hand. With interrogation
comes a sense of guilt, which, in turn, creates flaws when it comes to
confessing. Guilt can force someone to confess to something they may not have
done just to get rid of their sense of guilt and the stress of intense
questioning. This ties in to our past reading of Page duBois’ Torture and Truth in which torture, or
in this case, interrogation, tries to uncover a truth that may not have been
there in the first place. This relentless grilling and demand for some sort of “truth”
creates the dilemma of a false confession. According to Brooks, “the law still
today -as in medieval times-tends to accept confession as the ‘queen of proofs’.”
Therefore, a false confession can be seriously detrimental because while it may
not hold truth or weight to it, a false confession can still be regarded as
definitive evidence. Thus, Brooks argues that while the law may believe confessions
to be a confirmation of truth, this may not always be the case.
Paul deMan describes confession as "overcom[ing] guilt and shame in the name of truth" and that good and evil are actually "superseded" by "truth and falsehood". The idea of truth or lies overpowering good and evil is also the ideal theme of the court system. While our court system does enforce "innocent until proven guilty", lots of landmark cases value truth over good. For instance, the Brewer v Williams case, in which Williams had surrendered himself to the police after being charged with the murder of a nine year old girl, but he had not yet named the location of the body. A police officer engaged in casual discussion with Williams (who was very religious) about how it would be hard to give the girl a "good Christian burial" if they couldn't find the body. Williams ended up naming the location of the body, and admitted to the crime. Williams' lawyer argued that because Williams had given the location before the official interrogation, this could be an infringement of his rights, instead of a knowing waiver of his rights, making his confession invalid. The decision was that his confession was invalid, but he was later convicted of murder and got the punishment the law deemed that he deserved.
ReplyDeleteThis "confession" to a crime he was obviously guilty of could be held as truth according to the law, or if it was invalid it could be dismissed. Like Lauren said, the confession wasn't a confirmation of truth in the eyes of the law.
I definitely agree that during interrogation, the suspect feels compelled to give a confession and in order to do so, gives a false confession. Of course this is what the interrogators want. They fashion the confession themselves through loaded questions and an intimidating presence. The suspect is, thus, made to feel guilty and the only way to get rid of the guilt is to confess. In this case, the performative aspect of confessing overrides the constative aspect. Despite the confession being untrue in content, the suspect (and interrogators) are satisfied by solely the performative aspect of the confession. The mere act of confessing gives the suspect moral relief and gives the interrogators what they consider a "voluntary" confession. This dynamic shows that the "confession, even if compelled, is always in some sense "true" as a performative, indeed as a performance, but this does not guarantee that it is not false as a constative, as a relevant 'fact'"(22). Despite laws ensuring the protection of the accused, interrogators automatically assume that the accused is guilty and coerces the suspect to speak against him/herself. This psychological manipulation causes the subject to confess no matter if he/she is innocent.
ReplyDeleteLauren-
ReplyDeleteYour post makes a great tie between Brooks and duBois's writings, in that both torture and confessions may draw out a "truth" that in the end is not true. I also find it very interesting to look objectively at the nature of confessions. The idea that confessions are made due to a feeling of a guilty conscious regardless of if an individual has anything to confess. This concept is similar to proceedings for the individuals held at the war prison Abu Ghraib. When being tortured, individuals confess any information they have in order to try and stop the torture. Confessions seem to be more of a personal or mental torture, when put on trial or in front of authority figures, even if an individual has nothing to confess, they seem to be likely to confess anything just to get out of the situation. This is found throughout literature like in the Crucible, when most characters from the play confess to witchcraft even though they are innocent, due to the discomfort trial and accusal creates. The relationship between the truth, torture, and confession is fascinating and I enjoyed the points you made in your post.
Great analysis, Lauren! I think it's particularly interesting how a confession is rather wholeheartedly considered a valid proof of guilt, when clearly, as we have been discussing in class, false confessions are commonly given under interrogation. Dubois understands torture as being a definitive way to elicit the "elsewhere" truth: there is a truth to be uncovered. Brooks looks more specifically into the idea of confessions, and argues that confessions authenticate such a truth. In the eyes of the law, any confession is a valid confirmation of guilt, even if the interrogation practices include lying/fabricating evidence in order to persuade a confession. The significance of this is that the suspect often yields to the pressures of interrogation and will utter a confession, simply to cease the interrogation.
ReplyDeleteGreat point that truth and confession do not always go hand in hand! We have seen examples of this in many of our readings (The Crucible, The Wall). Through questioning and hatred of the process, individuals could possibly give a false confession. This brings up many problems, two of the major problems being: false evidence and submission to power. However, the readings also allow the reader to think about the benefits of confessions for the victim. The inquisitor's ability to create guilt in the victim is released once the victim falsely confesses to a crime.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that confessions aren't necesarrily true is one that isn't oftened considered in out society, with the obsession with confessions that Brooks says exists. This obsession with confession is predicated on the idea that confessions are true by their nature, as a false confession wouldn't hold the exhabitionist appeal that a true confession does. If society didn't automaticly assume that confessions were true, they would not hold the attention that they do, and instead would be treated with suspicion and doubt.
ReplyDeleteChristine-
ReplyDeleteI like how you state that confessions can be torture for the accused when put on trial or in front of authority figures. Being in such a high-pressure situation with all eyes of them would be very mentally stressful, especially when the high risks of a trial are added. This could cause the person to confess anything to stop the event and get them out of such a stressful and awkward situation. Not only that, but if they are not actually guilty, their denying of the accusations generally causes the prosecution to push harder, creating more stress and incentive to confess. A great example of this is The Crucible, where John Proctor resists the false accusations made against him for a long time until the pressure and stress becomes too great for him to handle and he breaks down. I think everyone would agree that the mere act of confession was enormous mental torture for him.
These were definitely very important points you mentioned and a great analysis. I completely agree with how guilt can force someone to confess to something that they might not have actually done and we can see this in previous reading such as The Crucible. I also saw this recently in the Ryan Ferguson case in my hometown. His friend, Chuck Erikson, was interrogated for a very long time until he felt he were actually guilty for this crime and accused himself along with his friend Ryan for something they never did. Brooks does a wonderful job in Troubling Confessions showing how the interrogator will question in specific ways in order to find a confession even if it is faulty.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of confession is really weird. Victim or suspects are asked to confessed to their own crime that will be used to condemned themselves. How will that ever be authentic? In those cases of torture, confession are also merely a method to get out of the extreme pain. There is high possibility that it will not be of truth but what the interrogator wanted to hear and used to condemn them. I guess only the confessor know what is true and what not.
ReplyDeleteSociety’s opinion on confessions is one that is very contradictory. As children, we are encouraged to admit to our mistakes, but then we are punished. Confessions are held in the same regard in religion, law, and literature. We encourage it, but we also condemn those who are guilty. Confessions also have been false due to the pressure of interrogation. Many interrogators go into questioning assuming that the suspect is already guilty. The suspect is only there to confirm the story that the interrogator believes is true. While democracy has made us believe that everyone’s rights are protected, like the right to remain silent, many authorities have gone around the Miranda rights in order to pry out a confession. This brings about the questions of whether or not the confession was truly voluntary and whether or not the confession was truth. Also, what do we consider a truthful confession? Is the act of simply confessing a truth in itself? If it is, does it matter if the content of the confession is also honest? There is always a blurry line between truth and fiction. These question arise not only for court confessions, or religious confessions, but they are also relevant to literary confessions. Autobiographies, for example, can be questionable, especially when the confessant is his or her own confessor.
ReplyDeleteChristine: I thought that the feasibility of finding truth in a confession under the pressure of guilt was interesting as well. It made me question whether there were any circumstances in which a confession might actually be real. However, the only way I could think of someone confessing something true voluntarily is if that person felt quite comfortable with the "interrogator", and that made me think of the Miranda rights example we talked about in class last week. While it seems unethical to draw a legal confession out of someone in a very casual setting, I can't really think of another setting which would be more natural and therefore less likely to be a lie.
ReplyDeleteLauren- I think your point about false confessions is interesting, and has significant implications in legal scenarios. We place too much value on a mere confession, which already carries a negative connotation. Confessions themselves may even render people blind of the actual truth if they are carried out with enough emotional energy. It is important that people take confessions for what they are, and realize that there may be ulterior motives that can lead to a modified truth.
ReplyDelete