Is confession the master of evidence?

We are accustomed to hearing the phrase “confession is the master of evidence” a lot, especially in cinema and drama, but is this phrase legally accurate?

We must clarify at the outset that “confession” as a means of proof in criminal law has a history full of fluctuations throughout the ages, and perhaps in the not-so-distant past it was indeed the master of evidence, but the situation is different at the present time.

The past of “recognition” is burdened with burdens in the period from the 12th century AD, up to the middle of the 18th century, until the Cultural Revolution that Europe witnessed constituted a decisive and pivotal turning point in exposing the defects of relying on it alone, in light of the arbitrariness in extracting “recognition” by coercive means, and the consequences. These were human tragedies, until several countries were able, by virtue of civilizational and human development, to stop these harsh methods of obtaining “confession,” and the judiciary began to adapt its rulings according to a fair, modern perspective, and established the rule that “the accused’s confession of the crime charged against him must be obligatory.” It must be issued by free will, free from any material or moral pressure.

Legal systems kept pace with the development of civilizations, and methods of proof became numerous and diverse. There was a boom in extracting forensic and forensic evidence, witnesses, experience, and evidence, all the way to modern technological means. The criminal judge became able not to adhere to a specific piece of evidence, and to grant discretionary authority. He may take from the evidence what he is comfortable with. Everything else is presented, in accordance with the principle of the freedom of the criminal judge to form his belief.

At this stage, the “confession” is no longer the master of evidence, but rather has become equal to other means of proof, and is only considered the first proof of proof if the conditions for its validity are met, which are “is issued by a free and conscious will in accordance with correct procedures, and that it is consistent with the reality in the case,” and this is a critical angle. Importance, as the “confession” has no value if it contradicts conclusive technical evidence, such as a forensic or forensic report.

Likewise, a confession that was made in exchange for financial compensation to exonerate the real criminal, or a confession made in revenge and to spite others, or to harm them, is not considered valid when the accused claims that they instigated it or participated in it, or the confession was made by mistake, or if it was intended to protect a person closely related to the accused, such as a mother’s confession. of a crime to remove the accusation from her son, the “perpetrator of the crime.”

Just as confession is one of the reasons for punishment, it may be a reason for exemption from it in some crimes committed in secret, to encourage the perpetrators to reveal them, and to guide the authorities to those who contributed to them, as is the case in the crime of bribery, according to Article 239 of the Federal Penal Code, Which stipulates that “the briber or intermediary shall be exempted if he takes the initiative to inform the judicial or administrative authorities of the crime before it is revealed.” Ultimately, the integrity and validity of a confession are closely linked to ensuring access to justice through correct legal means and procedures, which is the goal of proof.