Anastaska Кузнецова's Key Ideas from The Psychology of False Confessions
by Gisli H. Gudjonsson

it clearly revealed the browbeating methods of coercion used upon an exhausted boy, and helped many people make up their minds about the police and their subtle brutality.

In the 1980s the main obstacle to preventing and correcting miscarriages of justice involving confession evidence was that people found it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a serious crime of which they were innocent (Gudjonsson, 2003a). That misguided attitude changed considerably after the acquittal of the ‘Guildford Four’ in October 1989 (Ewing & McCann, 2006; Gudjonsson & MacKeith, 2003),

a case that opened the gate to other miscarriage of justice cases involving disputed confessions in the UK (Gudjonsson, 2010a). The case represented a long and hard battle (Kee, 1989; McKee & Franey, 1988), but justice prevailed in the end (Victory, 2001). Persistence does pay.

A part of the early battle was to change negative attitudes and misconceptions by educating police officers, lawyers, and judges about the growing evidence base of false confessions and the need for improved police interview training and practice (Gudjonsson, 1992a, 2003a). The science of the psychology of false confession emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and has continued to develop over time. It has paid dividends in the form of changing the legal landscape in the UK and Norway, but other countries have been slower to respond (Walsh, Oxburgh, Redlich, & Myklebust, 2016).

A solid theoretical foundation, supported by empirical evidence and case studies, helps us understand the underlying causes of false confessions and how they may be identified, researched, and prevented.