ctv_will: Welcome to Court TV Online chats.
What's happening here tonight is that we're going to be talking to Peter Brooks.
Mr. Brooks is a professor of Humanities as Yale University, and he has just written a book called "Troubling Confessions."
The book looks at confessions in all segments of our society.
Legal confessions,
Literary/dramatic confessions,
and also confession in religion.
Why is confessing such a big deal to us?
Mr. Brooks's book opens talking about Clinton and how even though everyone knew Clinton lied under oath, they still wanted to hear him say the words.
Why is that? What does it matter?
What need is served in ourselves when we confess?
If you don't think confession is a big deal to our culture, go to a bookstore and see how many "tell-all" books you see.
What do you think of those? People selling out? Or are they serving some deeper need in themselves?
Or watch cable TV at night--confessions are such a big deal they've become sexual fetishes.
Or daytime TV with people on Rikki Lake. Her new motto is "confession is good for the soul"
Is it? Or is it just good for Rikki Lake's ratings?

And also take a look at our own judicial system. Right now Miranda rights are being hotly debated.
You know Miranda rights--the right to remain silent...etc....

One of the points Mr. Brooks talks about in his book is the issue of false confessions-
when police get people to confess to crimes they didn't commit.
Why would people confess to something they didn't do? It happens all the time.
Some more religious people think God is the only person who should hear confessions.
What do you think of that?
What do you think of people like Jimmy Swaggart and that big confession he's so famous for, all crying and on his knees?
We'll get Professor Brooks to talk about the role of God in taking confessions.
Just a few days ago, the mayor of NY confessed to having an affair.
Some people said that since he admitted it before the press blew up about it, he saved some face.
What do you think of that? Does doing something bad become less bad if you fess up about it?
Would the mayor have been ruined politically if he hadn't admitted to the affair and the press found out?
Would Clinton have avoided all that Lewinsky business if he'd just said from the beginning, Yes I did it.

thugsta_c199313 asks: if i was clinton i would of done it to
ctv_will: You would have lied to the American people?
Or you would have had the affair?
Would you have confessed?
Alison, that is a great point about gossip.
Not only do some people find relief in confessing, but others enjoy HEARING confessions.
Some to the extent that they'll pay $4.95 a minute to hear it on the phone! LOL!

witchiewoman_4 asks: Do you believe that a confession frees your soul from guilt?
thugsta_c199313 asks: it makes you feel better
thugsta_c199313 asks: i think its called guilt
Peter Brooks: A confession CAN free you from guilt-- it depends on the situation, and who it's made to.
The trouble is, police interrogators can play on that use of confession-- freeing your soul from guilt-- in situations where it's punishment, not absolution, that lies ahead.

crimeycrime asks: I think confession in religion is crazy. You do whatever you want and then confess, and then everything is ok.
countrybabe010 asks: a confession to the Lord frees us from guilt
Peter Brooks: For those who believe in religion, no doubt confession is a consolation.
And even for those who don't, it's comforting.
Think of the child confessing to his or her parents-- that offers consolation, freedom from concealment.
Usually with confession there is a secret-- and hiding secrets can be psychologically painful.
We're taught from an early age that concealment increases our guilt, that confession will mitigate it.

alisonrrrr1999 asks: Whos God is deemed responsible for taking confessions
Peter Brooks: The history of confession in the Roman Catholic Church is interesting-- it became a requirement on believers in the 13th Century, in the Fourth Lateran Council.
And along with the requirement to confess came the first statement of orthodox Christian dogma-- what every Christian should profess-- and also the creation of an Inquisition, to stamp out heresy.
You can see how these things are related: confession, and the policing of conscience.
The requirement to confess is linked, I think, to the development of our whole modern notion of the individual person, that person's interiority, character, responsibilities.

girl_of_your_dreams_16 asks: hey what kind of confessions are we making in this room??
squishyboobies69696969 asks: i must confess i'm 11 and is pregnant cz i have been sexually raped
Sexycoolchic asks: I am in love with a man... he has a wife.
ctv_will: It seems people are almost eager to confess to some things. Do you agree? To what do you attribute this eagerness?
Peter Brooks: People are eager to confess. Confessions of all kinds now take place in public situations-- on TV, for instance.
Why? I think it's linked to that question of individual personality-- we don't feel we're real, authentic beings unless we have some secrets to confess.
In this sense, our modern culture of confessions develops from Rousseau and the Romantics, who first claimed that they had to expose their souls in order for us to know them fully.

lynn_blossom asks: I feel if our children come to us with something they have done wrong we should not just punush them but realize what it took to ge them there and what they are now going through having relieved themself of this pain
crimeycrime asks: don't you think there's an element of the value of honesty in confession? like "I cannot tell a lie!"
Peter Brooks: I agree. When people confess-- especially when children confess-- we do and we should value that.
Our whole notion of character values honesty and sincerity very much.
Once again, I think the problem arises in situations of pressure-- as in police interrogations-- where people are told they MUST confess.
It's just because confession is such an intimate and volatile kind of act and speech that one needs to protect it and handle it with care.

denverbronco_99 asks: why should i confess
witchiewoman_4 asks: Do you think a husband should confess his affairs to his wife?
ctv_will: Lots of people writing in asking if they should confess about one thing or another. Do you recommend confession as being generally a good idea?
Peter Brooks: I don't think there is any one answer to those questions.
Everything depends on the situation.
In a situation of trust, where you believe the confession will serve to consolation and healing, it probably is a good thing.
But in other situations it can breed mistrust, or simply cause pain.

HoarsePucky asks: The eagerness of people to confess to things that are considered socially bold or even marginally illegal, I think, is a show of bravado that bespeaks the begging, or seeking, of acceptance. What do you think?
Peter Brooks: I think that can be true. I think there can be a certain bravado in confession, a defiance.
For instance, the serial killer Ted Bundy, once he started confessing, insisted on giving the police a complete narrative of all his horrific acts.
In this sense, confession can be an act of defiance, a challenge thrown at other people.
It can also imply the question: I bet in your own way you are just as guilty as I am.

thugsta_c199313 asks: policeand judges are dirty in their own political world
ctv_will: Can we use this to talk about coerced confessions or false confessions?
Peter Brooks: The trouble is that often for the police, confession is the easy way to solve a crime.
Easier than doing the hard work of detection, gathering evidence, etc.
So that too great a reliance on confessions in criminal process tends to make police investigators lazy.
If you can get the incriminating evidence by forcing your suspect to confess, you've saved much work.
This can lead-- it has led-- to false confessions.
Judges are supposed to review confessions and plea-bargains to determine that they were voluntarily made.
But often this is a very cursory review.
And the whole notion of "voluntariness" strikes me as a bit beside the point where confessions are concerned.
They rarely are made, in criminal procedure, fully voluntarily. There is almost always some pressure.
As Cheif Justice Earl Warren wrote in Miranda v. Arizona, the situation of "custodial interrogation" is "inherently coercive."
The suspect is in a lcoked interrogation room, which he is not free to leave.

ctv_will: I thought it was an interesting point you made in your book that eliciting a confession brings peace of mind to the police, making them feel good that they got the right person. That peace of mind could be motivation in itself for some people.
Peter Brooks: Absolutely right. I think a number of people confess simply to have peace, to get the police off their backs.
The case of Peter Reilly, wrongly convicted of homicide in Connecticut a number of years ago, comes to mind.
It's clear that he confessed because the police said they had evidence to convict him anyway (which was false) and that the only way to be restored to friends and community was through confessing.

HoarsePucky asks: how can a judge tell if a confession was coerced?
Peter Brooks: In our present system of justice, he rearely can.
He can determine if the suspect was given the "Miranda warnings," but over 80% of suspects waive the right to counsel that those warnings provide.
I think the only way to assure that a confession is true and voluntary is to have counsel present.
And to have the confession videotaped-- which is not done as much as it should be.

alisonrrrr1999 asks: confession is about gossip everybody loves to gossip
Peter Brooks: It's true that confession and gossip are closely related. Maybe you could say that gossiping is passing on other people's confessions.
They both respond to our desire to know more about the inner being of other people.
And thus it's no accident that both confessions and gossip have a lot to do with the novel.
Novels are often confessional in form, and they often purvey gossip.

ctv_will: Professor Brooks mentioned videotaped confessions a few lines ago. I just want to point out that Court TV Online will soon be presenting a special section devoted to confessions, including several video confessions, like Brandon Wilson re-enacting the murder he committed for police.

thugsta_c199313 asks: ok whats the book got to offer people in thier everday life?
Peter Brooks: The book is a meditation on the strangeness of the fact and act of confession.
It deals both with the law-- with court cases on confession-- and with literature (writers such as Rousseau and Dostoevsky and Camus).
Also, with psychoanalysis as a modern secular form of confession.
And to some extent with the history of the religious practice of confession, and its enormous influence.
And I talk a bit about a famous recent demand for confession-- from President Clinton.
That interests me, since everyone knew what he had done-- it was spread over thousands of pages of the Starr report-- but some of the media still insisted he should make public confession.
I don't know that the book will help you in your daily life-- but it might make you think more about the kinds of confession we make and ask others to make in everyday life.

HoarsePucky asks: what kind of research did you do to write this book?
Peter Brooks: I read a large number of court cases on confessions, a good deal of the psycholoogical and psychoanalytic literature, and gave myself a crash course in history of the Roman Church. And then I reread a number of works of literature.

witchiewoman_4 asks: Do you believe that if one confesses, one should not have to pay for the crime that one has done?
myles_sugg asks: hey, is it alright to commit a crime but tell after its done?
Peter Brooks: No, I don't think it's ok to commit a crime and expect to go free because one confesses.
Crime deserves to be punished,
There may be instances where confession of crime leads to mitigation of punishment.
This doesn't make it any less a crime.
It merely reflects our society's value on confession, on coming clean, and on remorse, and possibly improvement.

minnieev asks: Do any jurisdictions require a confession/interregation to be taped, either audio, video or both?
HoarsePucky asks: are the rights waived via coersion?
Peter Brooks: The choice to videotape or not depends on local jurisdictions.
There is no blanket rule on the subject.
Now, videotaping can also be misused, if the interrogators only turn on the camera after they have pressured the suspect to the point he says he'll confess.
For videotaping to be probative, the camera really needs to be on all the time.

alisonrrrr1999 asks: jAmericans love to confess that's why you have Jerry Springer
ctv_will: Is confession obsession a purely American thing?
Peter Brooks: Americans do love to confess. It has something to do with the American valuation of openness.
We don't llike barriers, even between strangers.
And we seem to have an unlimited appetite for confessions, as on Jerry Springer.
I am not sure, but I suspect that societies that have more traditional manners-- more barriers of etiquette among people-- perhaps have fewer confessions, at least in public.

mrchicken2000 asks: we confess in england
ctv_will: Thank you Mr. Chicken. :)
Peter Brooks: I'm sure you do confess in England-- and actually you are afforded fewer protections when arrested by the police than American suspects.

HoarsePucky asks: who or what is the greatest beneficiary of confession?
ctv_will: good one hoarse
Peter Brooks: You could say society, in the case of the criminal suspect.
With more private confessions-- or public non-criminal ones-- I'm not sure.
Albert Camus's novel The Fall suggests that the primary beneficiary is the person confessing.
For the person listening to the confession, it's mainly a net loss.
He or she is somehow contaminated by the guilt poured into his or her ear by the person confessing.
Once again, it all depends on the contex of the confession, and the use that is made of it.
The Church had the good idea of placing confessions under "the seal of confession"-- so they would go no further.
This was supposed to insure that the confession would not be misused.
But in our more public secular form of everyday confession, there is no seal (back to gossip again), and I'm not sure there always is any benefit gained.

ctv_will: We're getting close to the end of our chat window, so we have to wrap up here. Thank you very much Mr. Brooks for taking this time to chat with us.
Very interesting chat.
Peter Brooks: You're welcome.

ctv_will: And very interesting questions.
Yahoo should think about putting up an online confessional of some kind, this question list is pretty bizarre.

pardon me while I run the credits....
This chat was brought to you by the good folks at Court TV Online www.courttv.com
where we have people on standby to give you the very latest on theBinion case (ie the verdict or jury questions)
Keep up with CTV chats with the CTV talk page www.courttv.com/talk
and if you have some time, check out our Court TV Yahoo Club at clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/theofficialcourttvclub
Once again, Professor Brooks's book is called "Troubling Confessions" it came out this month, and though it is thoughtful and thorough, it is not so inaccessible as to make it unreadable.
I enjoyed it.
(I dont' always say that because frankly I don't always read the whole book of authors we chat with, but the other thing about "Troubling Confessions" is that it's short enough that I was able to finish it. :) )
Our next chats will be about Women in Prison. I have a whole week's worth of guests lined up for that next week, so I hope to see you at some of them.
You have three minutes to run to your TV and see Chandler and Monica get married.
Until next time, fear simple answers.
This chat has ended, you may go in peace. :)