Bias and Accuracy in the Evaluation of Videotaped Confessions

在刑事司法系统内，利用录像带技术记录和展示供词证据的趋势越来越大。对审讯/供述进行录像的一个明显的好处是，这种程序应使事实调查员能够客观和准确地确定供词是自愿的还是胁迫的，从而在确定被告的有罪或无罪时是否具有任何份量。然而，尽管录像审讯和供词的制作和随后的评估表面上看起来是客观的，但关于虚幻因果关系的科学文献表明，这一过程的某些方面可能无意中对自愿和有罪的判决产生偏见或偏见。到目前为止的研究表明，相对于其他忏悔陈述格式，用摄像机拍摄的聚焦于忏悔者的录像带往往会产生更大的自愿和有罪的判断。这项研究以先前的工作为基础，主要有两个方面。第一组调查将继续审查以前在录像供词中证明的摄像机视角偏见在多大程度上适用于现实世界的情况。第二组调查的重点将是确定录像带放映格式对评价供词证据准确性的影响。这项研究具有相当大的应用意义，因为只有清楚地确定录像带格式的潜在利弊，才能就如何利用这一程序创新以最大限度地造福刑事司法系统作出适当决定。

Within the criminal justice system, there is a growing trend toward utilizing videotape technology to record and present confession evidence. An apparent advantage of videotaping an interrogation/confession is that such a procedure should make it possible for fact finders to determine objectively and accurately whether a confession was voluntary or coerced, and consequently whether it should carry any weight in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant. However, despite the seeming objectivity associated with the making and subsequent evaluation of a videotaped interrogation and confession, the scientific literature on illusory causation suggests that certain aspects of this process could inadvertently bias or prejudice judgments of voluntariness and guilt. Studies to date show that, relative to other confession-presentation formats, videotapes that are recorded with the camera focused on the confessor tend to produce judgments of greater voluntariness and guilt. This research builds on prior work in two primary ways. The first set of investigations will continue examining the extent to which the previously demonstrated camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions generalizes to real-world situations. The second set of investigations will focus on determining the effect of the videotape-presentation format on accuracy in the evaluation of confession evidence. The research conducted is of considerable applied significance because only when both the potential advantages and disadvantages of the videotape format are clearly established can appropriate decisions be made as to how to utilize this procedural innovation to the best benefit of the criminal justice system.