There are numerous reasons that can lead to a wrongful conviction, several of these cases innocent people incriminate themselves by giving false confessions. Over the years, false confessions have been one of the leading causes of wrongfully imprisoning many people. There are many factors that contribute to why people falsely confess and is substantially more common than people think. Many have this belief that complying with police to maintain their innocence includes signing a confession to an act they did not commit. Many people are easily manipulated to signing these confessions by the police presenting convincing false evidence. Some of these individuals are young and naive and put their trust in the police. They believe the police are there to help them but some are unaware of the law and waive their miranda rights. In order for people to maintain their innocence people feel they must tell the police what they want to hear. We begin to look at the different types of confessions and what causes people to to falsely confess. Police often put a certain amount of pressure on someone and they might feel as if they have no way out. People may confess for a number of reasons including to protect someone, if they are mentally impaired, or if they feel guilty for something they did unrelated to the case. Presenting false evidence to people can be seen as one of the main reasons that lead to false confessions. In the United States it is legal for interrogators to tell the suspect that incriminating evidence exists even if it does not. This can be a disputed point that highlights the countless complications encountered later down the road. The problem in our society is many people don’t realize how convincing false evidence may be and how easy it is for the police to manipulate someone into a false confession. One of the forms of a confession can be seen as a persuaded confession. This article highlights the idea of when a suspect is ew they committed a false and they internalize the false confession. In this article they research if fake video evidence could lead people to believe they committed an act they did not commit. If the likelihood for the see-video subjects to confess and believe they committed the act would be higher than the told-video subjects. In this experiment the comparison of whether they are told incriminating evidence exists or if they are shown incriminating evidence would lead them to believe they committed the false act. In this experiment the impact that a of false evidence can have is shown that everyone is susceptible to potentially falsely confess. The subjects assumed they had committed the act of taking the fake money because false evidence convinced them. This is significant because it shows how the subjects begin to question their memory and most without hesitation comply. The subjects automatically reject their instincts due to the presentation of false evidence. Subjects were asked fifteen questions on a computer. When the subjects answered a question incorrectly they were required to return fake money. When a question was answered correctly they were required to to take the fake money. In this experiment all subjects were accused of taking the fake money when they should have returned it. In this experiment, half of the subjects were told that incriminating video evidence exits and half are shown the incriminating video. This stresses the belief of how crucial false evidence can lead an individual to falsely confess. A majority of the subjects in this experiment signed the confession and internalized the false act. See-video subjects and told-video subjects were equally likely to confess but see-video subjects signed on the first request. This experiment show the impact that falsifying video evidence can make on confessions. When police fabricate evidence during interrogations as a technique to get a confess it can be seen as hurting our criminal justice system more than helping it. In the film the interrogation techniques used by the detectives were intensely misguided. The three main detectives on this case presented false evidence to Brenton Butler he did not match the description given by the witness and there was not enough to point him to the crime. In the film, the detective Glover during trial made a comment based on racial tensions and used that as a tactic to get the confession. *****relate to videoInnocence article****During interrogation, that can go over 24 hours many people become exhausted and confess to the police what they want to hear. The social pressure put on these innocent victims can be immensely compelling. The degree to which integrations push a suspect to what they believe is telling the truth is excessive. This leads to extensive complications in our criminal justice system. In the the experiment that studies false confessions and the relationship with offending behaviour and personality among Danish adolescents the purpose was to examine false confessions to police, parents, teachers and their relationship to personality and self-reported offending. This experiment was conducted with 715 students in further education in Denmark. Each subject answered a questionnaire regarding offending and personality. They answered questions based on past confessions made to police during questioning and to teachers. The results show 10% of the subjects said they had been interrogated by the police and 51% said they had committed the offence. 15% of the total sample said they had given a false confession to parents or teachers when only 7% said they had given a false confession to police. The study showed the most frequent reported reason to falsely confess was to protect a friend. The evidence shows false confessions do happen and is not as rare as people may think. The police need to recognize that this is a recurring problem. Many will do anything in their power to prove their innocence and are blinded when police coerce them into a confession. As shown in the film Brenton was minding his own business when police approached him because he had similar features to the suspect. Although there are hundreds of people that also fit the extremely vague description given to the police, Brenton cooperates with the police every step of the way in order to prove his innocence. Brenton in this case was coerced to sign the confession by violence due to one of the detectives on the case threatening him. This is seen in many cases where confessions like this can be admissible in court and is unjust to the victim. Miaranda rights articlce*****Concl:Year after year we have been working continuously to make improvements for wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project has been exceedingly successful as innocent defendants use DNA exonagerts as their last resort to prove their innocence. These movements have argued the validity of expert testimony and false confessions. What comes into question is what exactly is a false confession to completely understand how it can be prevented. A false confession can be defined as admittance to a criminal act that they did not commit………..how to improv Eyewitness testimony has many issues with uncontrollable factors that make it challenging to improve. Many people trust what they saw even if it was for a brief amount of time. Even with short expose many people claim they without a doubt would be able to recognize the individual if they saw them. This is not always the case. If there is presence of a weapon, they are more likely to focus on the weapon and not the person. Not being able to make a clear identification based on limited expose and concentratin on the weapon decreases accuracy. As seen in the film it is certainly possible to make a misidentification based on race or age. This can be very problematic if all the victim saw was a black male with a weapon for a brief amount of time. The victim also is under immense stress which makes it harder to encode memory, these high levels of arousal contribute to another factor that deals with eyewitness testimony. Having this be one of the most powerful forms of evidence in trial makes us question the validity of all these uncontrollable factors. In the film, the police on this case made many mistakes. They found one young man that matched the description of the perpetrator, as well as many others in that community. They insisted on persecuting him due to victim’s husband identifying Brenton Butler as the man who killed his wife. By bringing Brenton to the scene of the crime was one of the many mistakes. I believe this could have been avoided if a line-up was used instead. I believe a sequential lineup would have been ideal for this case. A showup was used as witness identification in order to convict Brenton.