After watching the whole documentary, I can't see how this confession can be considered "forced" - best claim defense attorney had was that the boy was so mentally challenged he didn't understand what he was confessing to.
Meanwhile, in non-first world countries, torturing and beating subjects on the usual, even non-vioent crimes is a routine. US justice had problems, but your "especially" is unwarranted.
That we've identified how this human behavior yields improper enforcement of law and try to take measures to guard against it is a good sign. Never-ending fight I imagine though.
How does this have anything to do with OP? The circumstances are completely different.
They took a guy, put him in a van, tortured him, before they were going to process, and potentially charge him. This was torture by the police who also do interrogations. This is not some isolated incident. This is normal police procedure. Intimidate. Arrest. Torture. Prosecute.
I don't. My point was about relative stats, not absolute. Is the difference between these two concepts such a complicated thing?
Not sure where I see you mention anything at all about stats? It's hard to make statistical arguments for things that are difficult to quantify because they are so underreported.
Plea bargain is often forced confession - so many plead guilty out of fear