Bobby Johnson,

泰勒·艾德蒙斯、

Davontae Sanford,

巴比·強生、

Marty Tankleff,

戴馮泰·山佛、

Jeffrey Deskovic,

馬堤·坦克利夫、

Anthony Caravella

傑佛瑞·戴斯柯維克、

and Travis Hayes.

安東尼·卡拉維拉，

You probably don't recognize their faces.

以及崔維斯·海斯。

Together, they served 89 years for murders that they didn't commit;

你們可能不認得他們的面孔。

murders that they falsely confessed to committing when they were teenagers.

他們為自己沒有犯下的謀殺 所服的刑期，加起來是 89 年；

I'm a forensic developmental psychologist,

他們錯誤地承認在他們 還是青少年時犯下謀殺罪。

and I study these types of cases.

我是法庭發展心理學家，

As a researcher,

我研究的就是像這樣子的案例。

a professor

身為研究者、

and a new parent,

教授，

my goal is to conduct scientific research that helps us understand

以及新手媽媽，

how kids function in a legal system that was designed for adults.

我的目標是進行科學研究， 來協助我們了解

In March of 2006,

在為成人所設計的法律體制下， 孩子們會怎麼做。

police interrogated Brendan Dassey,

2006 年三月，

a 16-year-old high school student with an IQ around 70,

警方訊問了布蘭·登戴西，

putting him in the range of intellectual disability.

他是位 16 歲的高中生， 智商大約 70。

So here's just a brief snippet of his four-hour interrogation.

這樣的智商是屬於智能障礙的範圍。

(Video) Police 1: Brendan, be honest.

以下是他在接受的四小時偵訊中 截取出來的簡短片段。

I told you before that's the only thing that's going to help you here.

（影片）警察一： 布蘭登，要說實話。

We already know what happened, OK?

我之前告訴過你，唯有誠實能幫你。

Police 2: If we don't get honesty here --

我們已經知道事情發生的經過，好嗎？

I'm your friend right now,

警察二：如果你不說實話——

but I've got to believe in you,

現在我是你的朋友，

and if I don't believe in you,

但我必須要能相信你，

I can't go to bat for you.

如果我不相信你，

OK? You're nodding.

我就無法支持你。

Tell us what happened.

好嗎？你在點頭。

P1: Your mom said you'd be honest with us.

告訴我們發生的經過。

P2: And she's behind you 100 percent no matter what happens here.

警察一：你媽媽說 你會對我們說實話。

P1: That's what she said, because she thinks you know more, too.

警察二：不論在這裡發生什麼事， 她都會完全支持你。

P2: We're in your corner.

警察一：那是她說的， 因為她也認為你知道更多。

P1: We already know what happened, now tell us exactly. Don't lie.

警察二：我們和你的立場是一樣的。

Lindsay Malloy: They told Brendan that honesty would "set him free,"

警察一：我們已經知道事發經過， 現在告訴我們細節。別說謊。

but they were completely convinced of his guilt at that point.

琳賽·馬洛伊：他們告訴布蘭登， 誠實能「讓他得到自由」。

So by honesty, they meant a confession,

但在那個時候， 他們完全認為他是有罪的。

and his confession would definitely not end up setting him free.

所以他們所謂的誠實，就是認罪。

They eventually got a confession from Brendan

可以肯定的是，他的供詞 最後不可能讓他得到自由。

that didn't really make sense,

他們最終拿到了布蘭登的供詞，

didn't match much of the physical evidence of the crime

內容並不合理。

and is widely believed to be false.

該犯罪的許多實體證據 大都和供詞不符，

Still, it was enough to convict Brendan and sentence him to life in prison

而且很多人認為那份供詞是假的。

for murder and sexual assault in 2007.

但在這起 2007 年的 謀殺與性侵害罪中，

There was no physical evidence against Brendan at all.

它仍然足以將布蘭登定罪， 判他終身監禁。

It was nothing more than his own words

完全沒有對布蘭登不利的 任何實體證據。

that sent him to prison for nearly a decade,

只是他自己的認罪供詞，

until a judge overturned his conviction just a few months ago.

讓他坐了將近十年的牢。

The Dassey case is unique because it made its way into a Netflix series,

直到幾個月前， 一位法官才推翻了他的定罪。

called "Making a Murderer,"

戴西的案例很獨特 是因為它被拍成了網飛的影集，

which I'm sure many of you saw,

叫做《製造殺人犯》。

and if you haven't, you should definitely watch it.

我相信在座有很多人看過。

The Dassey case is also unique

如果你還沒看過，你絕對應該要看。

because it led to such intense public outrage.

戴西案例的獨特之處同樣在於

People were very angry about how Brendan was questioned,

它造成了非常強烈的公憤。

and many assumed that his interrogation had to have been illegal.

對於布蘭登被質問的方式， 大眾感到非常生氣。

It wasn't illegal.

許多人認為他的偵訊 應該是不合法的。

As someone who's a researcher in this area

它並非不合法。

and is familiar with police interrogation training manuals,

我身為這個領域的研究者，

I wasn't really surprised by what I saw.

加上我很熟悉警方的偵訊訓練手冊，

The fact is, Dassey's interrogation itself is actually not all that unique,

看到這樣的狀況， 我並不真的感到意外。

and to be honest with you, I've seen worse.

事實是，戴西的偵訊本身 並沒有很獨特。

So I understand the public outcry about injustice

老實跟各位說，我看過更糟的。

in Brendan Dassey's individual case.

所以我能了解大眾會強烈抗議

But let's not forget that approximately one million or so of his peers

布蘭登戴西這個案子中 所發生的不公正。

are arrested every year in the United States

但我們別忘了，

and may be subjected to similar interrogation techniques,

美國每年會逮捕 大約一百萬名和他類似的人。

techniques that we know increase the risk for false confession.

這些人可能都會受到 類似的偵訊技巧對待，

And I know many people are going to struggle with that term,

我們知道這些技巧 增加假供詞的風險。

"false confession,"

我知道許多人對「假供詞」 這個詞有異議，

and with believing that false confessions actually occur.

我知道許多人對「假供詞」 這個詞有異議，

And I get that.

而且他們相信 假供詞所敘述的確實發生了。

It's very shocking and counterintuitive:

我能了解。

Why would someone confess and even give gruesome details

這非常讓人震驚且和直覺不符：

about a horrifying crime like rape or murder

為什麼會有人要招供， 甚至附上可怕的細節，

if they hadn't actually done it?

宣稱自己犯下了 像強暴或謀殺的恐怖罪行，

It makes no sense.

但其實並不是他們做的？

And the fact is, we can never know precisely

那實在說不通。

how often false confessions occur.

事實是，我們永遠 不可能精確地知道

But what we do know is that false confessions or admissions were present

假供詞有多常發生。

in approximately 25 percent of wrongful convictions

但我們確實知道 大約 25% 的錯誤定罪

of people later exonerated by DNA evidence.

涉及假供詞或坦承。

Turns out, they were innocent.

後來當事人 因為 DNA 證據被免罪，

These cases are crystal clear because we have the DNA.

結果是他們是無辜的。

So they didn't do the crime,

這些案例因為有 DNA， 所以可以非常肯定。

and yet one-quarter of them confessed to it anyway.

所以，這些人並沒有犯罪，

And at this point, from countless research studies,

但是當中卻有四分之一的人 仍然承認犯了罪。

we have a pretty good sense of why people falsely confess,

目前，根據無數的研究報告，

and why some people,

我們已經相當了解 為什麼有人會做假供詞，

like Brendan Dassey,

也能了解為什麼有人，

are at greater risk for doing so.

像布蘭登·戴西，

We know that youth are especially vulnerable to providing false confessions.

做出假供詞的風險會更高。

In one study of exonerations, for example,

我們知道年輕人 特別容易提供假供詞。

only eight percent of adults had falsely confessed,

比如，在一項關於免責的研究中，

but 42 percent of juveniles had done so.

只有 8% 的成人會做出假供詞，

Of course, if we're just looking at wrongful convictions and exonerations,

但 42% 青少年會 。

we're only getting part of the story.

當然，如果我們 只看錯誤定罪和免責，

Left out, for instance, are the many cases that are resolved by guilty pleas,

我們只看到片面。

not trials.

比如，我們漏掉許多 因犯人認罪就結案

From TV and news headlines,

而沒經過審判的案件。

you may think that trials are the norm in our legal system,

根據電視和新聞標題，

but the reality is that 97 percent of legal cases in the US

你們可能會認為審判是 我們法律體制的基準，

are resolved by pleas, not trials.

但現實是美國有 97% 的法律案件

Ninety-seven percent.

由認罪就結案，沒有經過審判。

Also left out will be confessions to more minor types of crimes

97%。

that don't typically involve DNA evidence

我們還會漏掉輕罪的供詞，

and aren't usually reviewed or appealed following a conviction.

通常沒有 DNA 證據，

So for this reason,

定罪之後通常不再被復審或上訴。

many refer to the false confessions we actually do know about

因為這個原因，

as the tip of a much larger iceberg.

許多人認為我們得知的假供詞

In our research, we found alarming rates of false confession among teenagers.

只是更大的冰山的一角。

We interviewed almost 200 incarcerated 14-to-17-year-olds,

在我們的研究中，我們發現 青少年的假供詞比率很驚人。

and 17 percent of them reported

我們訪談了近 200 名 被監禁的 14~17 歲青少年。

that they'd made at least one false confession to police.

當中有 17% 說

What's also shocking to most is that,

他們向警方做出 至少一項的假供詞。

in interrogations in the US,

還有一項讓大部分人 感到震驚的事，

police are allowed to interrogate juveniles just like adults.

在美國的偵訊中，

So they can lie to them --

警方是被允許把青少年 當成成人來偵訊。

blatant lies like, "We have your fingerprints,

所以警方可以騙他們——

we have your DNA;

公然說謊，比如 「我們有你的指紋，

your friend is down the hall saying that this was all your idea."

我們有你的 DNA；

Lying to suspects is banned in the UK, for example,

你朋友就在鄰近的偵訊室裡， 他說這事全是你主導的。」

but legal here in the US,

比如在英國，禁止對嫌犯說謊，

even with intellectually impaired teens like Brendan Dassey.

但在美國這裡是合法的，

In our research, most of the incarcerated teens that we interviewed

甚至可以對像布蘭登·戴西 這樣的智障青少年說謊。

reported experiencing high-pressure police interrogations

在我們的研究中， 接受我們訪談的被監禁青少年

without lawyers or parents present.

大部分說他們經歷高壓的警方偵訊，

More than 80 percent described having been threatened by the police,

身邊並沒有律師或家長陪同。

including with the possibility of being raped or killed in jail

超過 80% 說到 他們曾被警方威脅。

or being tried as an adult.

威脅的內容包括他們可能 會在監獄中被強暴或殺害，

These maximization strategies are designed

或被當成成人來審判。

to make suspects feel like denials are pointless

這些「最大化策略」是設計來

and confession is the only option.

讓嫌犯覺得否認是無意義的，

So you may have heard of playing the role of "good cop/bad cop," right?

招供是他們唯一的選擇。

Well, this is bad cop.

各位可能聽過 扮演「好警察和壞警察」吧？

Juveniles are more suggestible and susceptible to social influence,

這就是壞警察。

like the intense pressure accusations and suggestions

青少年更容易接受暗示 以及受到社會影響，

coming from authority figures in interrogations.

比如來自偵訊中有權勢一方的

More than 70 percent of the teens in our study said

強壓指控和暗示。

that the police had tried to "befriend" them

我們的研究中， 超過 70% 的青少年說

or indicate a desire to help them out during the interrogation.

警方試圖和他們「做朋友」，

These are referred to as "minimization strategies,"

或是在偵訊過程中表示要協助他們。

and they're designed to convey sympathy and understanding to the suspect,

這些被稱為是「最小化策略」。

and they imply that a confession will result in more lenient treatment.

這個策略是設計來向嫌犯 傳遞同情和了解，

So in the classic good-cop-bad-cop oversimplification

並暗示如果他們招供就能 得到比較寬大的待遇。

of police interrogations,

所在警方偵訊中

this is "good cop."

常用的好警察 - 壞警察簡化後，

(Video) P1: Honesty here, Brendan, is the thing that's going to help you, OK?

這就是「好警察」。

No matter what you did,

（影片）警察一：布蘭登， 現在只有誠實能幫得了你，懂嗎？

we can work through that, OK?

不論你做了什麼，

We can't make any promises,

我們都能想辦法處理，好嗎？

but we'll stand behind you no matter what you did, OK?

我們無法做任何保證，

LM: "No matter what you did, we can work through that."

但不論你做了什麼， 我們都會站在你這邊，好嗎？

Hints of leniency like you just saw with Brendan

講者：「不論你做了什麼， 我們都能想辦法處理。」

are especially powerful among adolescents,

像剛剛布蘭登接收到的 那種會寬大處理的暗示

in part because they evaluate reward and risk differently than adults do.

對青少年來說是特別強大的。

Confessing brings an immediate reward to the suspect, right?

部分原因是因為青少年和成人 評估獎賞和風險的方式不同。

Now the stressful, unpleasant interrogation is over.

對嫌犯來說，招供馬上 就能帶來獎賞，對吧？

So confessing may seem like the best option to most teens,

很有壓力且不愉快的 偵訊就會結束了。

who are less focused on that long-term risk of conviction and punishment

所以，對大多數的青少年來說， 招供似乎是最好的選項，

down the road

他們比較不聚焦長遠的風險：

as a result of that confession.

接下來的定罪和處罰，

I think we can all agree that thoughtful, long-term planning

也就是招供的後果。

is not a strength of most teenagers that we know.

我想大家都能認同， 深思熟慮和長遠規劃

And by and large, the legal system seems to get

並不是我們所認識的 大部分青少年的強項。

that young victims and witnesses should be treated differently than adults.

總的來說，法律體制似乎了解

But when it comes to young suspects, it's like the kid gloves come off.

年輕受害者和證人應該要 受到和成人不同的對待。

And treating juveniles as though they're adults in interrogations

但對於年輕嫌犯， 法律體系就沒有同樣的考量了。

is a problem,

在偵訊中把青少年當作成人來對待

because literally hundreds

是一個問題，

of psychological and neuroscientific studies

因為確實有數百個

tell us that juveniles do not think like adults,

心理和神經科學研究告訴我們

they do not behave like adults,

青少年和成人的思考方式不同，

and they're not built like adults.

他們的行為模式也不同，

Adolescent brains are different from adult brains --

而且他們還沒有成年人的建構。

even anatomically.

青少年的頭腦和成人的不同——

So there are important changes happening

連結剖學上都不同。

in the structure and function of the brain during adolescence,

所以在青少年時期，

especially in the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system,

頭腦的結構和功能 會有重大的改變，

and these are areas that are crucial for things like self-control,

特別是在前額葉皮質 及腦部邊緣系統上。

decision-making,

這些區域對於自我控制、

emotion processing and regulation

做決策、

and sensitivity to reward and risk,

情緒處理及調節，

all of which can affect how you function in a stressful circumstance,

以及對獎賞和風險的 敏感度方面非常重要。

like a police interrogation.

上述這些面向都會影響 你在高壓力的情況下的反應，

We need to educate law enforcement,

比如在警方偵訊時。

attorneys, judges and jurors

我們必需教育執法人員、

on juveniles' developmental limitations

律師、法官，以及陪審團，

and how they can play out in a high-stakes interrogation.

有關青少年的發展限制，

In one national survey of police officers,

以及在關係重大的偵訊中 這些限制所造成的影響。

75 percent of them actually requested specialized training

在一項對警察的全國性調查中，

in how to talk to children and adolescents --

75% 的警察確實 有請求提供特殊訓練，

most of them had had none.

學習如何和兒童及青少年對談——

We also need to consider having special protections in place for juveniles.

他們大部分都沒有過這方面的訓練。

In his 91-page decision to overturn Dassey's conviction earlier this year,

我們也得考慮設立 保護青少年的特定機制。

the judge made a big deal about the fact that Dassey had no parent

今年推翻戴西定罪的那位法官， 在他 91 頁的判決書中，

or other allied adult

特別大肆強調戴西沒有父母

in the interrogation room with him.

或其他站在他那邊的成人

So here's a clip of Brendan talking to his mom after he confessed,

在偵訊室中陪同他。

when it was obviously far too late for him.

以下這段影片，是布蘭登 在招供之後和他母親的對話。

(Video) Mom: What do you mean?

很顯然，對他來說， 當時已經太遲了。

Brendan: Like, if his story is, like, different,

（影片）母親：你是什麼意思？

like I never did nothing or something.

布蘭登：就像如果…… 說法不同的話，

M: Did you?

像是我從來沒有做這件事。

Huh?

母：你有做嗎？

B: Not really.

有嗎？

M: What do you mean, "Not really"?

布：其實沒有。

B: They got into my head.

母：什麼叫「其實沒有」？

LM: So he sums it up pretty beautifully there:

布：他們控制了我的腦袋。

"They got into my head."

講者：他的總結很到位：

We don't know if the outcome would have been different for Brendan

「他們控制了我的腦袋。」

if his mom had been in the interrogation room with him.

我們不知道如果 布蘭登的母親有在偵訊室中

But it's certainly possible.

陪伴他的話， 結果是否會有所不同。

In our research, only seven percent of incarcerated teens,

但肯定有可能不同。

most of whom had had numerous encounters with police,

在我們的研究中， 只有 7% 受監禁的青少年，

had ever had a parent or attorney in the room with them

當中大部分人都 曾經和警方有過數次接觸，

when they were questioned as a suspect.

在被當成嫌犯訊問的時候，

Few had ever asked for a parent or attorney to be present.

有父母或律師在房間中陪同。

And you see this in lower-stake situations, too.

很少人曾要求要有父母或律師在場。

We did a mock interrogation experiment in our lab here at FIU --

在較不嚴重的情境中 也有這種現象。

with parent permission for all minors, of course,

在佛羅里達國際大學的實驗室中， 我們做了一項模擬偵訊實驗——

and all the appropriate ethical approvals.

當然全都得到 未成年人父母親的同意，

We falsely accused teens and adults of cheating on a study task --

也取得了所有必要的道德倫理許可。

an academic dishonesty offense --

我們故意錯誤指控青少年和成人 在一項研究工作上作弊——

that we told them was as serious as cheating in a class.

一項學術詐欺罪行——

In reality, participants had witnessed a peer cheat,

我們告訴他們，這件事 和在課堂上作弊一樣嚴重。

someone who was actually part of our research team

在現實中，參與者 曾目擊到一位同儕作弊，

and was allegedly on academic probation.

這位作弊者其實 是我們研究團隊的人，

And we gave everyone a tough choice:

宣稱他被留校察看。

you can lose your extra credit for participating in the study

我們讓每個人面臨艱難的選擇：

or accuse your peer,

要麼你（自白而）得不到 參與這項研究的額外學分，

who will probably be expelled because of his academic probation status.

要麼指控你的同儕，