Why Do Police Use False Evidence?

After reading the article and the chapter I came to the conclusion that police will do anything in their hands to pressure and find incriminating evidence in cases where there might be none in order to solve a case. I don’t want to sound bias due to my personal experiences but the reality is that the goal of “questioning” is to elicit a confession which in many cases police will pressure to get one. I wasn’t aware using false evidence is legal in order to peer-pressure possible suspects to provoke a confession. From a personal perspective I believe this is wrong in many levels and even thought the article states it is only used in “some” cases I believe the police is capable of taking advantage of it. Police of course prefer confessions rather than other type of evidence due to the fact that it saves them time and they can avoid trial.
Understandably, juries almost always convict defendants who have confessed to committing a crime. In effect, a confession puts the suspect on the fast track to conviction” (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015, p.28). In this article there where three experiments the first one “Indicated that bluffing increases false confessions comparable to the effect produced by the presentation of false evidence. The second experiment replicated the bluff effect and provided self-reports indicating that innocent participants saw the bluff as a promise of future exoneration which, paradoxically, made it easier to confess and the last experiment replicated the bluff effect on innocent suspects once again, though a ceiling effect was obtained in the guilty condition” (Perillo & Kassin, 2010). The results were basically that innocents can confess even in response to relatively benign interrogation