In September 1988, Martin Tankleff’s parents were murdered in the middle of the night in their upscale Long Island home. Tankleff was an immediate suspect—detectives pointed to spite towards his parents and his desire to collect a $3 million inheritance as motives. There was little physical evidence pointing to him as the killer, but he was eventually convicted after a being the subject of an unorthodox method of interrogation.
While being questioned following the murders, a detective pretended to receive a call saying that Seymour Tankleff, Martin’s father, had awoken from his coma and had named Martin as the attacker (in reality, Seymour never recovered from his coma before dying a month later). Tankleff initially refuted the claim and said his father must have been confused. He offered to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. After further interrogation, however, Tankleff broke down and asked the detectives if it was possible that he needed psychological help, and whether it was possible that he had committed to murders himself while “blacked out.” He then proceeded to admit to harboring feelings of resentment towards his parents, and said that these feelings led him to commit the crimes. Tankleff never signed a written confession, but he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to fifty years in prison.
Tankleff maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison. Over the next several years, he proceeded to file several appeals for a new trial. When it was revealed that evidence regarding other suspects had previously been withheld, a new trial was ordered and Tankleff was released last December, after spending 17 years behind bars. He is now awaiting a new trial.
Martin Tankleff’s release from prison brings about an obvious question: if he is truly innocent, then why did he confess to the murders? Social psychology can help answer this question by means of the topic of self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is information we know about ourselves. We obtain knowledge of ourselves through, among other things, socialization, introspection, social comparison, and feedback from others.
Unfortunately, the introspection aspect of self-knowledge can often bring about problems. In examining our own thoughts and feelings, we don’t always fully understand the reasons we do the things we do. Sometimes this introspection can complicate matters, as we might misattribute the motives behind our behaviors. We actually know much less about ourselves than we tend to believe.
Our self-knowledge is so limited, in fact, that even autobiographical information can be manipulated. Our personal memories—those which define our lives and shape who we are—are vulnerable to biases, errors, and, as in this case, confabulations. When Tankleff was told that his father had identified him as the attacker, Martin noted that his father had never lied to him. He began to rationalize the motives behind such an attack, pointing out that he felt resentment towards his parents. They were smothering him, he said, and should have allowed him to drive a nicer car. Upon further consideration, he even determined that his mother’s request that he set up a card table for her the night before the murders must have been the last straw.
If Martin Tankleff really is innocent, he perfectly illustrates the problems that come with the limits of our self-knowledge. What began as a detective’s lie was manifested into a completely false memory within Tankleff’s mind. Martin Tankleff’s case truly exemplifies just how limited our self-knowledge really is.
Sources: Newsday 4/24/08, Newsday 12/22/07, CNN.com 10/3/03, Newsday 3/9/89
No comments:
Post a Comment