The legal status of confessions in contemporary legal systems

Abstract

Abstract provided by author

Confessions are out of court admissions of guilt which conform to certain rigidly defined requirements. A person who confesses to a crime acknowledges his liability and/or responsibility for the crime. The distinction between confessions and other selfincriminating extra-curial statements has been brought out by the fact that confessions and admissions have received different treatment in the field of criminal procedure and evidence. Because of its importance and its potency in criminal evidence confessions are subject to more stringent prerequisites for admissibility than admissions. The only requirement for the admissibility of an admission is that it must be made voluntarily, however before a confession will be admitted into evidence the general rule is that the prosecution must establish that the confession was made freely and voluntarily by the accused whilst in sound and sober senses and without having been unduly influenced thereto. It is therefore easier to render a confession inadmissible on the grounds of involuntariness or some other statutory disqualification than an admission. It is the constant struggle to ensure these requirements that have complicated the position of confessions in contemporary legal systems. The evidential weight of confessions has over the years been severely stained and it has caused some serious flaws for the administration of justice. By admitting a statement as an informal admission these unnecessary dangers could be avoided. Why does our law still rely on contentious confessions is thus the question posed by this paper. With all the controversy surrounding confessions, my submission is that informal admissions must be the only acceptable pretrail admission of guilt in criminal proceedings.