Faking a confession would of course be a major felony. There are several decent arguments against this idea, (which would have some strict criteria attached to it) but they all pale in comparison to the principle that it is a much graver sin to punish innocents than to fail to punish someone guilty. My forthcoming list of lengthier explanations will include my counter arguments that will probably convince most to accept this admittedly hard to swallow policy.
21. Before discussing how this idea might be implemented, I would like to address some of the objections
1. Very few would confess. They are home free so why should they? The main counterpoint is, “so what”. Isn’t freeing a few innocents better than freeing none? But I think we might be surprised. The actual perpetrator has two pretty good reasons to consider confessing. One is to eliminate the anxiety caused by the fact that there is always a small possibility that the truth will somehow come out. That reason, of course, pretty much goes away if the statute of limitations has expired. But the other reason would be the guilt of knowing that someone else is facing years in jail, or even the death penalty if he doesn’t come forward. (There could be a third reason. Confessors who are verified get, besides amnesty, a reward. I think that is worth doing. In spite of the fact that it would cause those who put forward #2 below to feel even more strongly.)
2. It is just wrong to reward those who commit major crimes. This objection cannot be logically justified. The problem is that so many people are apt to have this opinion, that elected officials will fear putting in a policy that will make them angry.
3. It will be easy to fake a confession. I think most fake confessions will be easy to catch and most real confessions will be easy to verify. Also don’t forget that my idea includes major punishments for false confessions and false confessors always have to worry that there is something (photo, receipt, witness, etc.) that makes it a slam dunk conviction. In those cases where it is not obvious if the confession was real, there would be something like a real trial to try to determine the truth. Sometimes the result would not be conclusive enough to free the convict OR convict the confessor.
4. A scam could be preplanned. I set it up so that a friend gets arrested for a crime I committed and later on waltz in with the proof it was me. Really? First of all, the policy doesn’t kick in for at least a year or two after the original guy is arrested. Do you have friends who will do that time for you? Secondly how can you assure that your friend will be convicted at trial? (The amnesty option would not be available if the original guy confessed.)
5. Most of those freed will have already gotten away with one or more equally bad crimes even if he is innocent of this one, Of course the same argument could be made when someone goes to trial, but that argument is not allowed at that time. So why should it be different once he is in jail? No one will actually speak this objection out loud. But like objection #2 above, some people might think it and oppose my idea because of that.
6. The money to do this could be better spent. I would agree only if the money was in the tens of millions and the number of freed unjustly incarcerated was a single digit number.21. Before discussing how this idea might be implemented, I would like to address some of the objections1. Very few would confess. They are home free so why should they? The main counterpoint is, “so what”. Isn’t freeing a few innocents better than freeing none? But I think we might be surprised. The actual perpetrator has two pretty good reasons to consider confessing. One is to eliminate the anxiety caused by the fact that there is always a small possibility that the truth will somehow come out. That reason, of course, pretty much goes away if the statute of limitations has expired. But the other reason would be the guilt of knowing that someone else is facing years in jail, or even the death penalty if he doesn’t come forward. (There could be a third reason. Confessors who are verified get, besides amnesty, a reward. I think that is worth doing. In spite of the fact that it would cause those who put forward #2 above to feel even more strongly.)
As far as I am concerned these objections don’t come close to being strong enough to make my idea a bad one. And that would be true even if somehow criminals were able to figure out ways of springing the guilty at a rate that somewhat exceeded the freeing of the innocent. If the number of innocent people rotting in jail is in the several thousands as most experts believe, my scheme ought to free several dozen at the very least. And if even three times that amount were incorrectly freed, that is still within the ratio that we think is correct at the original trial where we considered it much worse to convict the innocent then acquit the guilty.
I am not sure of the details of this idea. But speaking generally, I would think that some of them would be:
The sentence should be at least three years.
The offer doesn’t kick in until after at least one year in prison and appeals have been exhausted. Longer, in cases where there is still an ongoing investigation that may free him.
The incarcerated convict did not confess or plea bargain. (Maybe allow exceptions for some plea bargains under duress).
A false confession that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt gets you at least two years, and in some cases (eg a scam) much more.
Be willing to have a full-fledged “trial” for the confessor for nonobvious cases.
Consider offering a reward beyond amnesty for the confessor.