[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Confessions need to be made inadmissible in court as evidence. All state legislatures have the power to make that so, as does Congress at the federal level. The judicial system could do it too, in theory, but never will.

Confessions could still be used by police as leads. While all "eyewitness testimony" is defective evidence, confessions are the most defective of all. Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology around confessions is the weirdest of all. It's why it's been exploited by the Catholic religion (and others). It causes strange (and not always unpleasant) emotions in those confessing, those hearing the confession, and even those confessing falsely. It causes them in those who confess because they were coerced, it causes them in those who choose to falsely confess without coercion. To those who are familiar with them, those pleasant feelings can become an irresistible temptation to falsely confess.

On top of that, it's been what, nearly 70 years since shows like the Twilight Zone introduced the idea to everyone that in unusual circumstances we might have done things we don't even remember. So when someone starts to break after long and even tortuous interrogations, they might themselves start to worry that they are guilty and their memories are faulty.

[psunavy03]

> Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology around confessions is the weirdest of all. It's why it's been exploited by the Catholic religion (and others). It causes strange (and not always unpleasant) emotions in those confessing, those hearing the confession, and even those confessing falsely.

The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sense. The judicial purpose is to convict you of a crime. The religious purpose is to examine your flaws with a trusted counselor (in this case a member of the clergy), and try to become a better person. I hope it's obvious why these are not the same.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sense.

That's completely irrelevant, if both confessions work the same way. And they do. There's no switch in the human brain that says "this is a judicial confession, be the sharpest least emotional being you've ever been". You may hope that the confession in the judicial sense acts as evidence, but when this clearly fails to be the case, over and over, for decades and centuries, creating a truly unknown and uncountable number of false convictions...

Well, then reasonable people don't whine "but they're supposed to be different!". If you can't see this, then I question your right to sit on a jury. You're simply unsafe for the rest of us to allow you to ever be involved in the process. It's very unfortunate that so many people who should rightfully be institutionalized for feeble-mindedness are allowed to do things like wander freely, vote, and use sharp tools.

[loup-vaillant]

The inquisition was effectively a judicial body. They were religious representatives and burned witches for questionable reasons, but their… questioning did force quite a few false confessions if I recall correctly.

This has little to do with your Sunday Priest.

[psunavy03]

See above. What people did 400 years ago is not relevant to my point about how things are today.

[elevatedastalt]

It is. Because the point GP / OP are making isn't that we are doing inquisitions today, but rather that the human psychology behind confessions has long been wielded as a tool.

[loup-vaillant]

OK, back on topic then: do you even dispute the main point, that today false confessions are being coerced out of suspects in Western precincts?

[buildsjets]

Historically, forced religious confession has been used to get the subject to confess to heracy, and then the subject is executed as punishment. All in hopes that the subject will become a better person, I assume.

[psunavy03]

This is 2024, not 1492.

[elevatedastalt]

And? Human psychology hasn't changed.