There are thousands of brain injured, many of them veterans punished for no crime that they have committed based on false confessions. Interrogations can be high-pressure situations for anyone, but for individuals with intellectual disabilities, the stakes are even higher. A compelling article titled “Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession” by Samson J. Schatz, published by Stanford Law School, dives deep into this critical issue.
The article explores how standard interrogation techniques, which are often stressful and complex, can disproportionately affect individuals with intellectual disabilities. These individuals are at a heightened risk of providing false confessions due to various factors such as suggestibility, desire to please authority figures, and misunderstanding the situation or the questions being asked.
Schatz provides a detailed analysis of case studies and legal precedents, illustrating the real-world implications of these vulnerabilities. The article underscores the urgent need for reform in interrogation practices to protect the rights and well-being of individuals with intellectual disabilities.
For those interested in criminal justice, psychology, or disability rights, this article is a must-read. It not only sheds light on a significant problem within the legal system but also calls for necessary changes to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure fair treatment for all individuals.
Click here to read the full article
Schatz, S. J. (2018). Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession. Stanford Law School. Retrieved from https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Samson-Schatz-Interrogated-with-Intellectual-Disabilities-The-Risks-of-False-Confession.pdf