Those who have no experience with the justice system can be totally unprepared for police interrogation methods. I would be willing to bet that the average person wouldn't know that police might lie during questioning; I certainly didn't. Original Article Interrogation tactics go unchecked by Julie Messner There are few issues in the United States that divide public opinion like the death penalty. Whether you are in favor of capital punishment you should agree that it applies only to the guilty. Nothing illustrates this point better than the phenomena of false confessions. Last Sunday's edition of the Arizona Republic explored some of the reasons false confessions occur. The article mentions a case right here in Phoenix: Robert Louis Armstrong, 51, was charged with murder and spent a year behind bars before being released. He was picked up for a triple homicide that occurred five years prior, yet according to an interview transcript, had no idea why police were targeting him. It turned out that a female acquaintance (who was in jail for violating probation) told investigators that Armstrong and the acquaintance's ex-boyfriend were responsible for the murders. Armstrong denied responsibility, saying that he was in Oregon visiting his mother when the murders took place. But prosecutors insisted they had evidence placing him at the scene of the crime and suggested Armstrong had been so drunk that he blocked out memories of the murders. Investigators asked him to imagine how the murders must have taken place and offered scenarios to help jog his memory. By the end, Armstrong, confused and sobbing, admitted to the murders, saying, "I'm sorry ... I deserve to die." Because investigators are allowed to lie, bully and intimidate suspects, suspects can become so confused that they actually begin to believe that they are guilty. Luckily for Armstrong, his defense team was able to obtain Greyhound records that proved he was in Oregon at the time of the murders. Faced with that evidence, the acquaintance who placed him at the scene of the crime retracted her confession. But other cases are out there where the convicted weren't so lucky, like that of the so-called "West-Memphis Three." Three young men went to prison (one is on death row) after one of them, Jessie Misskelley, testified that they were responsible for the death of three 8-year-old boys. Police believed that one of Misskelley's acquaintances, Damien Echols, might have been responsible for the murders and told Misskelley's father that there would be a reward if Misskelley could give any incriminating information. The problem is that Misskelley has an IQ of 72, which qualifies him as borderline mentally retarded. They questioned him for 12 hours (only 20 minutes of which were taped) and he eventually confessed that he, Echols and another local teen, Jason Baldwin, committed the murders. Further evidence refuted Misskelley's testimony. And in an experiment, members of his defense team got him to confess to a burglary that never happened. All of this communicates that some investigators, especially when under pressure to catch the perpetrator of a particularly heinous crime, will use scare tactics and other unsavory techniques to procure an admission of guilt. These cases show just how important it is that all suspects be provided with council, even if they waive that right -- because those waiving the right are often not in a state of mind to make the best decisions. Those who have no experience with the justice system can be totally unprepared for police interrogation methods. I would be willing to bet that the average person wouldn't know that police might lie during questioning; I certainly didn't. Every minute needs to be documented so that we can be assured of the accuracy of confessions before we put someone behind bars, or worse. Anything less could lead to miscarriage of justice that undermines the system for us all. Julie Messner is a journalism senior. Reach her at julie.messner@asu.edu