Criminal Confessions as Evidence: A Failure of the Adversarial System

The changes I made in this paper were largely aesthetic. Removed some quotes (and I’m confused as to the quotes/italics in the stand alone lines in section 5…is that citing from somewhere? If so, include the citation, at the moment it appears to simply be extra emphasis), got rid of some qualifications and vague quantities that made the author sound less sure than necessary. 1000 words on the dot (including section headings/title).

I think you’ve tapped an extremely interesting and important subject in this paper, the use of confessions/plea bargains in the criminal justice system, but your argument is a little scattered. In the first section you express a concern with wrongful convictions, whereas at the end you conclude confessions should be supplemented by corroborating evidence, and in the in-between you make the argument that confessions ought to be disregarded as evidence on the whole. Structurally, you should frame your dilemma at the outset, and propose a solution. Then, in the first part of the body of your work, explain why or how the problem exists (why is the problem actually a problem). Following this, introduce your solution, explain how it will alleviate the problem, and defend it as the best possible solution against all comers. You’re advocating for an immense change, and there are many angles opponents to this idea could approach you from. I’ll try to provide a few below.

While it may be true that wrongful convictions cost the system resources, it is important to weigh the benefits of confessions as evidence fairly. A wonderfully high percent of criminal cases never reach the trial stage due to being settled by plea bargains; how would the cost of trying all those cases (because they cannot be settled out of court with a plea bargain) stack up against the money saved on incarceration and rehabilitation of those found to be innocent who would have confessed? If every case is fully tried, wouldn’t that overrun our system, rendering it useless? Isn’t a functioning, albeit imperfect, system better than a non-functioning system?

If a full 70% of those who confess could not be convicted without the confessions, why would they admit to the crime unless they were reasonably sure they could in fact be convicted? Doesn’t that seem to suggest the accused actually committed the crimes they’re confessing to? (I’m assuming a basic level of competence on the part of the defense lawyers, that they’re capable of recognizing a case they can win and will not advise their clients to confess in such situations) Does that figure relate to the percent of prosecutions that would be unwinnable without a confession “as is” when they come before the arbiter, or the percent of cases that would be unwinnable even after full discovery? Additionally, if an innocent does want to confess in order to receive a guaranteed reduced sentence (as opposed to facing the uncertainty of a full trial) isn’t it in their interest to be allowed to do so?

You mention at the end of your paper (a point I believe ought to be brought in sooner) that lacking confessions as permissible evidence, prosecutors will be forced to decide which crimes are really worth punishing. Isn’t that the role of the electorate acting through their legislative bodies? Aren’t these things “criminal” because the people willed them to be so, and are decidedly worthy of punishment? Is it really the role of the prosecutor to decide who merits punishment? Doesn’t this bring in an even greater likelihood of arbitrary unfairness? Racism, sexism, class stereotypes, etc. could all affect who a prosecutor chooses to take to task.