Troubling Confessions: Confessor and Confessant

In this week's reading, Brooks discusses the truth, or rather, lack thereof, in confessions made by suspects in traditional police/interrogator situations. He argues that by putting the suspect under the pressure of guilt and other interrogation techniques, the suspect is less likely to make truthful confessions. While this seems counter-intuitive, it seems logical that a suspect in fear of the law and under heavy guilt would be inclined to make false or exaggerated confessions in order to escape his guilt and be redeemed. In a much more extreme case, this could compared to the prisoners of Abu Ghraib or victims of the Inquisition who would make false confessions after physical torture (if one would compare great guilt to torture.) Brooks's argument seems sound, but only at a heavily generalized value. I had to wonder about the suspects that felt no regard for the law or guilt for their actions because they were indeed innocent. Would they eventually feel guilt for the actions they didn't commit just from the techniques of being interrogated, feeling guilty for being suspected at first? Or would someone completely resilient just be interrogated for eternity until...what? In simple American police situations, I would assume that the police would have to release the suspect, but it makes me wonder what would happen in other situations where neither party is willing to give in.