By Elaine Cassel
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Tuesday, December 17, 2002 Posted: 12:42 PM EST (1742 GMT)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/17/findlaw.analysis.centralpark.jogger/index.html

Cassel discusses the problems associated with using confessions as strong evidence for conviction of a crime. She specifically looks at a case from 2002, where five teenagers were wrongly convicted and jailed for raping a jogger in Central Park. These five teens (ages 14-16) were questioned or “coerced” for hours about the rape, resulting their confessions. The confessions were implausible and the five confessions contradicted each other. No physical evidence linked the teens to the crime, but the confessions served as evidence enough to put them away, while the real perpetrator remained at large.

Many tactics were used to force these innocent* teens to confess. They were held in interrogation for 14-30 hours, their parents and lawyers were not present during the interrogation, and the interrogators lied to the teens– prompting the confession. Finally the teens were in a real life prisoner’s dilemma. We found in class that the optimal choice in the prisoner’s dilemma is for both prisoners to confess. Given the same situation, in real life, the teens confessed. Each teen tried to confess & turn in each of the other teens, in an effort to reduce their own punishment. The problem with using the prisoner’s dilemma technique for interrogation is the Nash Equilibrium is (Confess, Confess)–while a confession will help a trial where the defendant is guilty, a confession throws off a case where the defendant is innocent. Even if the prisoner is innocent, their best option seems to be to confess. The prisoner’s dilemma is certainly not the only practice at fault for the wrongful conviction of these teens, but a confession is could be very confusing to a jury. Why would an innocent person confess?

*They were innocent of this crime, but were guilty of at least one mugging.