Can you be put into jail just with a confession?

[Qnubi]

Let's assume you go to the police and tell them you have murdered someone (you didn't) and feel guilty about it. They then ask you where the corpse is and you would claim you cremated everything and as such there is no proof left. What would happen? Nobody would announce someone is missing, all they have is a confession that is wrong. I am curious how that would go.

[Puupi]

They can​, but they shouldn't.

[Qnubi]

Laws are different in different countries.

Then assume you are doing it in YOUR country.

[PACOX]

They can and they have.

[draynay]

I'm sure they'd detain you while attempting to verify the story.

[ranzino]

taken into custody immediately yes, to search for clues. but without evidence no attorney worth their salt will press a trial. you wasted everybody's time enough.

[shadowmouse]

For a bit more to think about, google false confession. This is something that lawyers, law enforcement, and judges are all aware of.

[Templar 331]

I'm sure they'd hold you until they can confirm you didn't kill anyone. After that I'm not sure. You would think that confessing to a murder you didn't commit would be grounds for being committed to a mental health ward.

[shadowmouse]

Look up false confessions and the Innocence Project.

Used to be a hearing officer.

The other side of that coin is that if enough details align, a confession can't just be ignored. If that were the case, some clever duck would commit a crime, then go in to confess to lay a foundation to claim his confession was false or coerced. The system isn't foolproof, but that is one of the reasons the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt.

[muto]

I'm sure they'd hold you until they can confirm you didn't kill anyone. After that I'm not sure. You would think that confessing to a murder you didn't commit would be grounds for being committed to a mental health ward.

Somewhat. Some homeless people try to get locked up because it’s free food and shelter, especially during winter, though they usually commit petty crime like theft or disturbing the peace.

As far as confessing to a murder you didn’t commit I’m sure they would investigate and when they found out it wasn’t you, you would still go to jail for lying to law enforcement.

[nonameelf]

If someone was actually murdered then your confession would be used to put you in jail, but you'd still have a trial and evidence that cleared you would be used were it available.

If no one was murdered you'd probably be held in jail until it was confirmed no one was murdered then you'd probably be charged with filing a false police report and perjury(if you confess under oath).

[shadowmouse]

It’s not like they’re in any way equipped to be making that judgement, we just allow them to.

Ah, I see, you simply have a bone to pick with the system. You might want to brush up a bit though:
https://kretzerfirm.com/bench-trial-...riminal-cases/
That's a Texas specific site, but the discussion is generally applicable.

Bench trials are an option, and one that I used to use where it fit and the client agreed. That doesn't mean that a jury consists of twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty as is frequently said. Scholars and professionals can and do make it onto juries. A jury is also able to reflect community standards on an issue -- something that isn't always for the best, but it is usually better than the other choice.

[shadowmouse]

Plenty of very legitimate reasons to dislike the justice system, especially in the US

While that may be true, that isn't the topic of the thread. The question in this thread is "Can you be put into jail just with a confession?' not, "What do you think of the American judicial system?"

No, condescending was having a layman tell me about law ("It’s not like they’re in any way equipped to be making that judgement, we just allow them to."), while ignoring that bench trials are a thing. Notice that I hadn't taken a particular stance when I entered the thread, I had simply suggested searching a particular phrase for more information. Results would have included information about coerced confessions and other problems.

Edit:

It's hilarious you think that the fact that people might rule differently than the law would dictate is a good argument for juries though.

You know what the alternative is? Come over here, where I live, because that's the alternative. A lot of people aren't well prepared to vote either, but they do and it is generally considered a good thing. Consider the fancy name for what you just said -- jury nullification:

Jury Nullification

A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification (sic), and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997).

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

Consider how jury nullification has been used to address sodomy laws and the Volstead Act in the US. If, for example, you favor the HK disorders being treated as protests, you should be in favor of juries who may not choose to follow the exact wording of the law.

[shadowmouse]

You're both being condescending. Does that help?

Depends, do you actually have a point or are you just being condescending?

What do you have there?

It is a system in evolution. Probably the main difference relevant to the discussion on juries is that jurors are appointed and are seen as more like judges:

The jurors are allowed to participate in all hearing activities of People's Courts according to the law, enjoying the same rights as regular judges after assuming their posts. The jurors are not chosen on a per-trial basis, but serve five-year terms in the jury pool, working on different cases from time to time.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d637a4e3...d/share_p.html

For a more detailed (but dated) discussion: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu...ontext=macintl

Caution, this article goes back to a time not long after the system was introduced and it predates the 2015 changes.

[Egomaniac]

Let's assume you go to the police and tell them you have murdered someone (you didn't) and feel guilty about it. They then ask you where the corpse is and you would claim you cremated everything and as such there is no proof left. What would happen? Nobody would announce someone is missing, all they have is a confession that is wrong. I am curious how that would go.

They can put you in Jail for being drunk in public. Putting you in Prison is a different thing entirely.

[shadowmouse]

That sounds a lot like the lay judges here in sweden in the lower courts except the lay judges are put there by politicians.

Ah, thanks! Nice to learn something, I'm not as familiar with Scandinavian law and its quirks as I'd like to be.

[shadowmouse]

@Josuke You seem to have missed that I wasn't handwaving criticism, I was explaining something to a layman who was going off on a tangent and will probably continue to do so.

There is a topic for the thread, perhaps the derail can be moved to another thread with a clear topic for discussion. Feel free to take the lead on that and I'll ring in on it.

[Daedius]

Homeless people have been known to commit offences to get sent to jail just to have shelter and food they offer as basic necessities, so false claims are a thing.

[shadowmouse]

Anyway your explaining went very well didnt it. Thanks for doing that, you're making the world a better place.

It did, actually. Stormvind asked something reasonable and I got to learn something too. You? Your previous "contributions" were to quibble over the use of words.

Laws are different in different countries.

Do you mean prison or do you mean jail?

Because if you get arrested at all you will end up in jail.

If you meant would you be charged and sentenced for the crime (which is how you end up in prison)? Doubtful.

That's wisdom of the ages stuff there champ. Well researched, clearly supported... Please do keep the derail going though, I appreciate the humor.

[Easo]

You can and people have been, but it really depends on the country and specific cases.
Normally, your claims would be investigated and if they cannot be proven, then you are free. Well, no, you most likely would get hit with the book for lying to the police (as you should...).
This is obviously done to try to avoid false confessions/taking fall for someone else.