In 1989, at age 43, Richard LaPointe was wrongfully convicted in Connecticut of sexual assault, kidnapping, and murder. During his nine-and-a-half-hour interrogation, detectives told him that his son and wife would never see him again if he did not confess to this crime, so he did. Although his confession did not align with the facts of the case and contradicted the forensic evidence, a jury of his own peers decided he was guilty. He spent 26 years in prison.
Richard, who suffered from a congenital brain impairment, was exonerated in 2015, but years had been taken from him that he would never get back. He died of COVID-19 in 2020, at the age of 74.
Even though our country has come a long way when it comes to civil liberties, we can all admit that there is still a lot of work to be done. Our criminal justice system is far from perfect, and one problem that demonstrates this is people admitting to crimes they did not commit.
False confessions happen in the interrogation room more often than people would like to think. When a case opens, suspects are brought in for a behavioral analysis interview. If the suspect gives a reason for the detective to think that they are lying, maybe through a lack of eye contact, or delivering suspiciously short answers, the suspect is then interrogated. This requires a snap judgment by detectives, despite the fact that the average person can detect lying only 54% of the time.
Our criminal justice system may not be deliberately designed to force people to make false admissions of guilt, but it is a problem we face. The current method of interrogation is made up of three steps; the first is isolation, to ensure a maximized level of anxiety for the subject by driving themselves crazy. Next is confrontation, where detectives have free rein to accuse the suspect of being at a certain time or place, and lie about evidence proving them correct. This happened to Mr. LaPointe, who was lied to about evidence depicting he was somewhere he was not.
The last step is minimization, where the detective levels with the suspect, tells them they understand why they “committed” this crime, and promises them some leniency in their sentencing after the suspect confesses. Essentially, the commonplace technique for official investigations in our country is based on manipulating people who are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Prominent scholars in this field have argued that current interrogation techniques “raise important ethical/professional issues and concerns about its political legitimacy in a modern liberal society.”
It is remarkable what can happen when someone is under this amount of pressure, and have it be worsened by the fact detectives are incentivized by confessions. When the detectives have already made up their minds, there is no way out. Confessions are a great way to prove that detectives are theoretically doing their job effectively.
However, this makes it all the more difficult for people to defend themselves in interrogations. Unfortunately, Richard LaPointe’s case is also an example of people with mental impairments being more susceptible to police deception. In a report, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Connecticut has shown that deceptive interrogation tactics disproportionately affect people of color, young people, and those with mental or physical disabilities because detectives have capitalized on their marginalized status. This is a strange phenomena to occur in a country that prides itself for having equal protection of the law for all its citizens.
Fortunately, states are moving to implement legislation that restricts the deceptive interrogations. In 2023, Connecticut passed Senate Bill No. 1071, which included a list of protections for adults and outright banned deceptive tactics in juvenile interrogations. While this initial legislation represents shifts to the right side of history, it still leaves many people potentially vulnerable to these tactics. There is more to be done.
We need to expand S.B 1071 to all people, not just juveniles. Connecticut should extend the protections that are afforded to youths and implement different methods to ensure that people are protected from aggressive interrogations. Every suspect ought to be aware of the rights that they have according to Connecticut State Senate Bill 1071, and they should be made aware of them before every interrogation. A required reading of the rights outlined in the bill before the interrogation would boost trust between the community and the police by having less of an aggressive environment, and result in a system truly in support of personal liberties. We cannot carry on with our fellow citizens being subject to this terrible treatment. This has no financial roadblocks or other obstacles; it is a cost effective, low stakes way to restore fairness in the criminal justice system.
For many, this is not an easy ask, and some will ask if this really a policy that we need. To that, I will remind you that keeping innocent people in prison does absolutely nothing for public safety when we could potentially leave the real perpetrators on the street. On another note, there are fairer ways to go about interrogations. Take England’s P.E.A.C.E method, for example. The acronym stands for preparation and planning, engage and explain, account and clarification, closure, and evaluation. Studies have shown that through this more community-focused method, more reliable confessions are produced.
It is about time we take care of our community in this meaningful way. This amended legislation could make sure that what happened to Richard LaPointe would not happen again. Connecticut has the opportunity to be on the right side of history again. I implore you to protect yourself and your fellow citizens. Call your state legislators and urge them to act on this issue.
Bella Caffuzzi is a senior at Trinity College, majoring in Public Policy & Law.