False Confession as a Possible Cause of Wrongful Convictions

Abstract

Overestimation of the confession of the accused is prohibited by Hungarian law and judicial practice. At the same time, however, confessions can play a key role, since the basic condition for some special procedures (arraignment, penalty order, plea bargaining) is the confession of the accused. In addition, the very important forensic role of the testimony and re-interrogation of the defendant cannot be questioned in general. Experience has shown that many factual issues are no longer in dispute if the defendant makes a confession in this respect, i.e. if the defendant provides evidence that is truly decisive ('conclusive') evidence in deciding the factual dispute, especially by making a detailed and revealing confession, not to mention if his confession contains 'testimony of fact' (i.e. the defendant states a fact that only the defendant can know). To this extent, the confession is also today the 'queen of evidence' (regina probationum). The layman's idea is that it is impossible for someone to admit to committing a crime he/she did not commit it, but practical examples show that there are many cases of false confessions in whole, in large part or at least in part that's why all statements made by the defendant, including confessions and denials, first and subsequent statements, and statements of co-defendants, must be examined in detail and their acceptance or rejection as evidence must be very carefully reasoned. The paper reviews the forms of false confessions and their dangers through some practical examples.