Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

A confession is an admission of guilt. People confess to all kinds of human failings and frailties, real and imagined, to friends, family, strangers, pastors, therapists, reporters, bartenders, talk show hosts, and anyone else who will listen to them. There is some disagreement, however, as to how to define the term confession in the context of contemporary American criminal justice. Some commentators broadly define the term to include admissions of criminal behavior to private parties, admissions to law enforcement officials not of guilt but of other facts that may link a suspect to a crime, and exculpatory statements (e.g., a self-defense explanation) as well as guilty conduct (e.g., an attempt to mislead or flee from the police). It is preferable, however, to distinguish a confession from other kinds of self-incriminating actions.

It should be noted that many confessions are “spontaneous”—made before the onset of formal proceedings—such as the one that became the focus of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Colorado v. Connelly (1986). In this case, a mentally ill man approached a police officer in the street and, despite being warned of his right to remain silent, confessed to a murder and led police to the crime location. The Supreme Court held that although the defense could challenge the reliability of the confession at trial based on the defendant's mental condition, the confession was otherwise admissible because the police had done nothing to coerce the man into waiving his constitutional rights. Most of the controversy surrounding the use of confessions in criminal prosecutions has been generated in cases in which a criminal suspect has first acknowledged guilt while undergoing spoken or written admission of involvement in criminal conduct in response to interrogation by law enforcement authorities. Accordingly, a confession is best defined as a criminal suspect's spoken or written admission of guilt to one or more specific crimes while undergoing interrogation by law enforcement authorities.

Confessions have been used as evidence against criminal defendants since ancient times. The admissibility of the confessions of accused persons, however, has always raised concerns of fairness and accuracy. These concerns are reflected in modern American law, particularly in decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

Confession in Ancient Legal Systems

The laws of ancient Greece and Rome recognized an accused's confession as evidence in criminal cases. In Athens in the fourth century BCE, magistrates began criminal trials by reading the charge and asking if the defendant admitted guilt. Such an admission would relieve the defendant of the need to submit a formal statement of denial and would typically result in less than the maximum penalty.

In the second century BCE, Roman tribunes (magistrates) presided over public trials conducted before crowds of spectators. After presenting the charges, the tribune announced a penalty and asked if the defendant admitted guilt. If so, the tribune would promptly sentence the defendant. But if the defendant denied the crime three times, the tribune would proceed to a hearing that took place before a formal assembly of the

people. The assembly, convened by the tribune, would decide by majority vote whether guilt had been established and what punishment was to be imposed.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading