Youth Are Prey in America's Justice System

The gap between juvenile brains and legal practices widens

By Cambria Wright

When he was 17, Jeffrey Deskovic admitted to raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl. Deskovic’s DNA did not match the actual offender, yet Deskovic remained in prison for 16 years because he pleaded guilty. His case is one of many in which police and court procedures outweighed conflicting evidence.

A 2024 research article addresses the science behind situations like this and dives deep into Deskovic’s case. In “Police-Induced False Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations”, Dr. Saul M. Kassin and colleagues said that adolescents and young adults like Deskovic are neurologically predisposed to obey authority in stressful situations.

“Believing in the criminal justice system and being fearful for myself, I told them what they wanted to hear…I thought it was all going to be okay in the end,” Deskovic said.

Only 10 states have updated interrogation laws to refleft research showing juveniles are more impulsive and less capable of understanding long-term consequences than adults. Police are still legally permitted to use deceptive tactics and courts continue to uphold confessions from minors even when there is evidence of coercion tactics.

Prefrontal Cortex in Youth

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) plays a major role in why youth suspects are more vulnerable in an interrogation. Located behind the forehead, the PFC determines decision-making, risk assessment, and emotional recognition.

While the PFC is important to everyday activities, it does not fully develop until a person reaches their mid-20s. It is common to see people mature as they age, and the improved self-control, memory, and attention span that comes from the PFC plays a part in that.

That being said, people younger than their mid-20s lack the skills that are needed to succeed in any form of interrogation. Therefore, Kassin and his fellow researchers warn that traditional interrogation tactics put young suspects at a higher risk of false confession.

“It’s a fundamental injustice – a violation of due process, in my view – to penalize young defendants for decisions, judgements or capacities that aren’t fully formed yet,” said Dr. Hayley Cleary, a developmental psychologist and professor of Criminal Justice and Public Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Cleary is among the researchers who developed “Police-Induced False Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations”.

Researchers argue that the justice system has long struggled to recognize who can fully exercise their legal rights.

In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered what is said to be one of their worst decisions ever. The Dred Scott v. Sandford case involved a Black man named Dred Scott and his wife Harriet – both were enslaved and sought their freedom in court.

Since the majority of the court believed slaves were not citizens of the United States, Scott did not have the legal standing to sue in federal court.

The case became an early example of the legal system denying people a meaningful opportunity to defend their rights. Under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, everyone – including juveniles – has the right to a fair legal process.

When the Court did not allow Scott to meaningfully defend himself, they essentially violated due process.

Similarly, juveniles in interrogations are said to have rights – like the right to remain silent or the right to avoid self-incrimination – but their underdeveloped brains prevent them from using those rights to their full potential.

Juveniles are stripped of their basic rights to properly state their innocence when law enforcement uses coercion that forces the young suspect to say what the interrogator wants to hear.

“The coercion, the manipulation, the stress and pressure that usually precedes a false confession, all emerges from a guilt presumptive mindset,” Cleary said. “A guilt presumptive mindset leads to misclassification of an innocent person as guilty, and the problems kind of snowball from there.”

In an interrogation, suspects are assumed guilty from the start. Since this is the case, the mindset of an officer is to focus on getting a confession, no matter if it is right or wrong, instead of getting the truth.

The Reid Technique

John E. Reid developed the Reid Technique in the 1940s, and it soon became one of the most used interrogation methods in the world.

Fortunately, this supposed more “humane” technique does not use physical coercion like the earlier decades did. However, the Reid Technique can use extensive amounts of manipulation that affects suspects psychologically.

“Considerations on Confession and the Reid Technique Applied to Criminal Investigation”, a scientific article by PhD candidate in Philosophy of Law at the University of Girona, Lívia Yuen Ngan Moscatelli, shares everything a person needs to know about the Reid Technique.

Moscatelli’s study highlights the tactics used in this form of interrogation. In fact, there is even a step-by-step process Reid created for his technique that is designed to psychologically wear out the suspect.

• Assuming guilt before questioning begins.
• Interrupting or discouraging denials.
• Offering moral justifications for the crime.
• Using psychological pressure, exhaustion and isolation.
• Presenting confession as the easiest way to end the interrogation.
• Forcing suspects into choosing between two incriminating explanations.

“If the accused continues to deny, and the inquisitor believes he hides his errors – even without proof – he will intensify the interrogation, modifying his questions,” Nicolau Eymerich said. “In this way he will obtain either a confession or contradictory answers.

Eymerich was a Roman Catholic theologian in the 14^th century, and while his words were recorded in his influential manual “Directorium Inquisitorum” (1376) about interrogations that included physical tactics, Moscatelli believes his words can ring true about the 21^st century’s Reid Technique.

For juveniles, who are more susceptible to stressful situations and complying with authority, these tactics can be especially harmful. Moscatelli’s research suggests that law enforcement should reconsider using the Reid Technique in interrogations with minors or at least include safeguards for this demographic of suspects.

Pleading Guilty When Innocent

Studies show that young people, usually up until their mid-20s, are especially vulnerable when fear, stress, and adults or authority figures are involved because of the immaturity in their prefrontal cortex.

“It is sometimes difficult to see vulnerability…what they [adolescents] look like on the outside is sometimes not reflective of where they are on the inside,” Cleary said. “It hurts my heart when I see a 16-year-old boy who’s already six feet tall and 190 pounds being treated like a man when cognitively, socio-emotionally, he’s more like a child,” said Cleary.

In “Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the ‘common sense’ hypothesis” by Lauren J Grove and Jeff Kukucka, an experimental study showed that those age 12 to 16 were more likely to admit as guilty when confronted with fabricated evidence or peer pressure than adults, even when they knew they had done nothing wrong.

Young suspects often prioritize immediate relief over long-term consequences. Researchers say some confess falsely simply to end the stress of interrogation.

Unfortunately, they do not realize in the moment that the confession could result in years of consequences. Due to their lack of brain maturity, juveniles care more about the immediate relief from stress than concerns about the future. For Deskovic, this meant spending 16 years of precious time behind bars when he could have been going to clubs with friends, pursuing a career, and experiencing young love.

Reducing False Confessions

Professionals who study youth suspect interrogations and psychology believe that video cameras are a must-have in an interrogation room. As of 2025, 30 states in the U.S. require custodial interrogations to be recorded on video. However, the mandate varies depending on the state and the crime committed.

Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota and Montana require all offenses – even traffic violations – to be recorded. Indiana, New Mexico, Utah and Wisconsin require offenses ranging from low-level theft to third-offense DUI charges to be recorded. States like Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois only mandate recordings for capital offenses (murder and rape). Arizona is one of the 20 states that does not have a law mandating video recording.

“Video recording is an absolute must. It’s essential, not just for juveniles or legal minors, but for suspects of all ages,” Cleary said. “Ideally, police would even record victim and witness interviews.”

Recording interrogations on video ensures transparency and allows the court and researchers like Kassin and Cleary to review the tactics used. Through watching the recordings and reviewing the tactics, many of the risk factors – especially with youth interrogations – come to light. On top of that, it is more likely that detectives and officers will lay off some of their more aggressive techniques if they know they are being recorded.

Specialized training for law enforcement officers on youth development is another simple way that false confessions can be avoided. By recognizing and understanding the vulnerabilities of young suspects, these interrogators can adapt their approach to make their interrogation style “youth-friendly”.

Under the United Kingdom’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it is required for suspects under age 18 or with a mental health condition to be accompanied by an Appropriate Adult (AA) during their interrogation.

“This practice should be adopted across states and nations to enhance the integrity of police interviews,” Kassin said.

The role of the AA is to act as a safety net for the suspect. They have the right to ask questions, help communication between the individuals, and ensure the interrogator acts fairly. In addition, the AA can request breaks for the suspect, speak to them privately, and request legal help if needed.

As of 2025, the U.K. has had about 3,309 fewer exonerations than the U.S., indicating that significantly more people in the U.S. have been released from prison after being wrongfully convicted. These individuals in America could have been wrongfully convicted simply because the law truly thought they were guilty, or they could have confessed as guilty because of psychological manipulation.

Preventing false confessions should not be complicated. It requires stronger interrogation standards that match science, a piece of technology, and a mature adult. By expanding these safeguards, innocent youth suspects can rest assured that they will not lose the best years of their life in a prison cell.

Seeking Reform

John “Divine G” Whitfield, Andre Brown, Dieter Tejada are among people who were convicted as young suspects before later being exonerated. At the time of their convictions, each individual had yet to reach the point of complete brain development. Many years later, these men who pleaded guilty under pressure were proven innocent.

With the help of the Deskovic Foundation – started by the other man who spent his early twenties behind bars – wrongfully convicted youth suspects are supported and advocated for. Deskovic’s non-profit organization is committed to seeking justice. Through generating media coverage and rallying supporters to attend court hearings, these extra vulnerable suspects are given a voice that law enforcement did not offer.

Along with dedicating his time to helping those in a situation like his, Deskovic has spent his freedom as an innocent man graduating from law school and marrying the love of his life.

“Treat youth like youth, irrespective of what they look like, irrespective of how they treat you as the adult in the room, the defense attorney, or the prosecutor,” Cleary said. “Because they’re not finished baking yet, and we shouldn’t treat them as if they were.”

When the law reflects science, experts believe that is when America will see a decrease in false confessions and exonerations with not just youth, but with suspects of any age, race, or gender. The law is meant to uphold justice, and as the risks of youth interrogations are revealed, the pursuit of true justice will be strengthened.

Cambria Wright writes the latest news for Grand Canyon University’s Club Sports teams, and journals about her everyday life daily. She is currently pursuing a Professional Writing for New Media degree with a minor in Sports and Entertainment Management at GCU.

Further Reading

Police-Induced False Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations, by Saul M. Kassin

Considerations on Confession and the Reid Technique Applied to Criminal Investigation, by Lívia Yuen Ngan Moscatelli

Directorium Inquisitorum, by Nicolau Eymerich

Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the ‘common sense’ hypothesis, by Lauren J Grove and Jeff Kukucka

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Case

The Deskovic Foundation website

                                                                     ###