Analysis of Guilty Plea and Lie Detection through Linguistic Markers: A Literature Review
Keywords:
Guilty Plea, False Confession, Forensic Linguistics, Linguistic Markers, Lie Detection, Courtroom DiscourseAbstract
This literature review examines the intersection of guilty pleas, false confessions, and lie detection through linguistic markers within modern judicial systems. While guilty pleas serve as an efficient mechanism to expedite legal proceedings and reduce court burdens, empirical studies have shown that they are not always a genuine reflection of culpability. A growing body of evidence reveals that false guilty pleas, often driven by coercion, plea bargaining pressures, and fear of harsher sentences, remain a persistent source of wrongful convictions. Language, as the primary medium through which guilt is articulated and legally constructed, plays a critical role in assessing the authenticity and voluntariness of such pleas.
Drawing on forensic linguistics, psychology, and computational linguistics, this review synthesizes findings on linguistic indicators of deception, including lexical, syntactic, discourse, and paralinguistic features. Studies by DePaulo et al. (2003), Newman et al. (2003), Vrij (2008), and Kleinberg et al. (2018) highlight consistent linguistic patterns such as reduced self-references, avoidance of agentive language, lack of sensory detail, narrative inconsistencies, and prosodic markers associated with deceptive statements. Moreover, advancements in natural language processing (NLP) demonstrate promising applications in automated lie detection, though challenges related to ecological validity, cultural differences, and ethical considerations remain.
The review concludes that integrating linguistic analysis into judicial practice can provide valuable tools for evaluating the authenticity of guilty pleas, mitigating risks of wrongful convictions, and strengthening substantive justice. However, future research must prioritize cross-linguistic validation, empirical studies of authentic courtroom data, and ethical frameworks to ensure that linguistic evidence is applied fairly and responsibly within the legal system