The article which we included as our second selection -- "The Consequences of False Confessions" -- told one side of the story associated with what those authors believed were unacceptable consequences of interrogation techniques that caused suspects to confess to crimes they did not commit.

This article by Laurie Magid accepts the notion that some types of police interrogation techniques might result in false confessions. At the same time she directly contests excessive limits on interrogation practices. Her concern is several fold.

First, she suggests that the most compelling justification for assessing the appropriateness of interrogation methods is the possibility of unreliable results. That, of course, would always be our concern: that how we collect evidence does not result in invalid results. Ms Magid does catalogue an impressive assortment of arguments relating to interrogations, suspects and confessions; however, she believes that only the issue of reliability justifies public concern over the matter.

Her second concern addresses our previous article directly. She contests the significance of Leo and Ofshe's suggestion that there are a significant number of cases in which false confessions have been inappropriately gathered. In part her concern is with the nature of the research Leo and Ofshe conducted. But in the end, Magid appears to accept the notion that there is precious little research to suggest that the problem is truly widespread in scope.

Let us stress once more, an article of this sort is less important for the actual work certified investigators perform -- remember, interrogation is not a investigatory technique consistent with our definition of investigation. However, the author's focus on the relationship between what one collects and how it is collected is absolutely consistent with the themes we address in our curriculum.