The English legal system allows confessions obtained under duress to be admissible if a suspect is considered "psychologically hardened". This approach contrasts sharply with the treatment of physical evidence, which is evaluated based on its reliability. While laws exist to deem confessions from torture inadmissible, judges often focus on a suspect's resilience instead of the methods used. This inconsistency raises concerns regarding wrongful convictions and highlights a significant bias in how confessions are treated.
Under English common law, if a suspect is deemed "psychologically hardened", the brutal tactics used to secure their confession may not count as torture or oppression in the eyes of the court.
While physical evidence is assessed by reliability, confessions rely entirely on what a person says, often under immense psychological pressure, making them more vulnerable to falsehood.
Sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) make confessions obtained through torture or oppression automatically inadmissible, yet judges' interpretations vary.
Judges frequently consider a suspect's perceived resilience rather than the objective cruelty of police tactics, leading to differing outcomes based on the suspect's psychological profile.
Collection
[
|
...
]