New York Times published this article talking about how innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit. Anytime you are questioned, or think you are helping someone by giving information for a crime HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT!!!
As stated in this article, "Proving innocence after a confession, however, is rare. Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett's study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway."
Look around this page and be sure to take the time to look at this article by Professor Garrett.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?_r=1&no_interstitial
As stated in this article, "Proving innocence after a confession, however, is rare. Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett's study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway."
Look around this page and be sure to take the time to look at this article by Professor Garrett.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?_r=1&no_interstitial
I've talked a lot about this in a few of my classes and it still blows my mind. It is so hard to picture myself confessing to a crime I didn't commit, but like the man in this article said, "you never know what you'll say until you're in that situation." I think it's ridiculous that police push so hard to get people to confess to crimes even when there is clear DNA evidence and passed lie detector tests that prove innocence. It sounds like the police are just trying to get the case over with instead of seeking real justice.
I think that all interrogations should be videotaped. There is no reason why innocent people should have to give up ten or more years of their life for a crime. Not only is the true perpetrator still out in the world reeking havoc, but an innocent person is paying the price. That innocent individual is going to have to live with all kinds of mixed emotions about the situation for the rest of his/her life. Their families will as well.