interview and interrogation methods
October 20th 2011 18:29
Interview and interrogation methods
We’ve come a long way since the confession’s methods of the inquisition. Today’s Miranda rights law provide the suspects with the right to silence and an attorney and the use of unethical physical interrogation methods is replaced by psychological techniques strategy.
The interrogation method, even though this method is well structured and means well in general, the intense environment pressures used during the process might lead innocent people to confess a crime they didn’t commit and a clear distinction must be made between interview and interrogation as it is two distinct methods of gathering information.
An interview is the first approach used by investigators, a nonthreatening initial method where officers gather information, observe verbal and non-verbal behaviour and should decide if they want to further interrogate the subject. The interview precedes interrogation; it is an informal inquiry, mainly for the officers to collect arguments to use later for additional case facts during the interrogations. The interview method is non-accusatory, even though the investigator believes or has reason to believe the individual’s implication in the case; this procedure is to establish a contact, getting information, taking notes about alibis, behavioural tips, and credibility and can be done a various environments.
The interrogation method uses different skills, it operates on statements to confront the individuals, and it is not asking for information but for a confession, it is conducted in a small and private room enhancing sense of isolation, increases anxiety and need for escape. It is a one way conversation; at this stage investigators are seeking to obtain confessions.
The Reid Techniques have developed a non-accusatory interview method, the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) which concept is to establish whether or not an individual tells the truth or is hiding information related to the case. The method is actually effective when there are several suspects and no particular evidence marking a specific person. However it has also been said to produce false confessions. The BAI method first step is to proceed by elimination from suspicion which is to identify the people that less likely to be involved in the case and concentrate on just a few suspects. (Reid) The interrogative phase is an accusatory process, the investigator tells the individual there is no doubt about his guilt and proceed to obtain confession. The problem with this method, as said above, is that it can lead via confirmation bias, to false confession and miscarriage of justice.
The strength of an interview is the neutral and objective attitude an investigator is to adopt, because at this stage it is not about accusing but gathering information. The investigator is instructed not to accuse the subject, even though he/she can sense the person is hiding information, its purpose by itself doesn’t lead to the closure of a case. On the other hand, an interrogation is accusatory. The investigator will start the interrogation by directly accusing the suspect, and the entire synergy will rotate around that accusation (Inbau et al., 2001), unfortunately such aggressive method can sometimes lead to false confession.
The Interview is a non-confrontational stage, the questions are not accusative, “the individuals verbal and non-verbal behavioural symptoms of deception are observed” (Kassin, 2010), and if conducted appropriately it can help to identify at this stage innocents from suspects. However, in such anxious conditions, innocent people will express same deceptive symptoms as the suspects, the line between which is which is very thin.
The interrogation treats the individual as if he/she is already guilty, there is no presumption of innocence, and this is a psychological game where patience is required. If the suspect is guilty it will take tremendous skills of the investigators to obtain confession on paper, a guilty person knows what not to say, but on the other hand, and that were this method shows weaknesses is when an innocent person is trapped in the system and ends up confessing something they didn’t do just to get out of it.
In the United States, it is permitted for police to show fake evidence and lie to suspects, in the case of an innocent person in such surreal situation, she/he will confess anything, feeling trapped under the weight of evidence (Kassin, 2010).
Since the Miranda’s rights, ethical issues have been improved, we can expect interview and interrogation methods to respect those rights and by so, letting any suspects use those rights whenever she/he wants it. On a legal level, besides interrogation method using somehow more confrontational psychological techniques, the use of physical violence is prohibited, however an attorney should be present with the suspect to confirm the ethic of the procedure.
Now, the psychological impact is more affiliated to the interrogation method, even though interview methods are less intrusive, being questioned by police officers, knowing one ‘self is innocent, isn’t by any means a pleasant experience. The psychological game of the mouse and cat, the constant accusations of guilt without the possibility of denial, the yelling, the fake evidence, the isolation from family and friends might turn anyone into psychological despair. Some personality traits are more at risks than others, people prone to compliance in society, avoiding conflicts or suggestibility and alteration of memories, anxiety, depression or psychological weaknesses, will suffer the abusive method on a deeper and more damaging degree not to forget that they might also have confessed at the same time a crime they have not committed.
Again, this is not about choosing one or the other, if both methods are used, they both provides positive results. However, as much as the first one seems more psychologically ethical it might also be too weak to undermine the offender’s mental strength; on the other hand the interrogation method by its offensive approach contributes to innocent causalities.
It requires tremendous skills and experiences to conduct an interview and an interrogation, besides obvious technical and strategy skills; an officer must also bear in mind the human and psychological side of the situation regardless whoever is in front of her/him. What we can say is that it is not just about the method but mostly about who is using it and how.
References
Inbau F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. P. (2001). Criminal interrogations and
confessions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Saul M. Kassin, Sara C. Appleby and Jennifer Torkildson Perillo (2010), Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
Saul M. Kassin (2008)The Psychology of Confession. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
We’ve come a long way since the confession’s methods of the inquisition. Today’s Miranda rights law provide the suspects with the right to silence and an attorney and the use of unethical physical interrogation methods is replaced by psychological techniques strategy.
The interrogation method, even though this method is well structured and means well in general, the intense environment pressures used during the process might lead innocent people to confess a crime they didn’t commit and a clear distinction must be made between interview and interrogation as it is two distinct methods of gathering information.
An interview is the first approach used by investigators, a nonthreatening initial method where officers gather information, observe verbal and non-verbal behaviour and should decide if they want to further interrogate the subject. The interview precedes interrogation; it is an informal inquiry, mainly for the officers to collect arguments to use later for additional case facts during the interrogations. The interview method is non-accusatory, even though the investigator believes or has reason to believe the individual’s implication in the case; this procedure is to establish a contact, getting information, taking notes about alibis, behavioural tips, and credibility and can be done a various environments.
The interrogation method uses different skills, it operates on statements to confront the individuals, and it is not asking for information but for a confession, it is conducted in a small and private room enhancing sense of isolation, increases anxiety and need for escape. It is a one way conversation; at this stage investigators are seeking to obtain confessions.
The Reid Techniques have developed a non-accusatory interview method, the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) which concept is to establish whether or not an individual tells the truth or is hiding information related to the case. The method is actually effective when there are several suspects and no particular evidence marking a specific person. However it has also been said to produce false confessions. The BAI method first step is to proceed by elimination from suspicion which is to identify the people that less likely to be involved in the case and concentrate on just a few suspects. (Reid) The interrogative phase is an accusatory process, the investigator tells the individual there is no doubt about his guilt and proceed to obtain confession. The problem with this method, as said above, is that it can lead via confirmation bias, to false confession and miscarriage of justice.
The strength of an interview is the neutral and objective attitude an investigator is to adopt, because at this stage it is not about accusing but gathering information. The investigator is instructed not to accuse the subject, even though he/she can sense the person is hiding information, its purpose by itself doesn’t lead to the closure of a case. On the other hand, an interrogation is accusatory. The investigator will start the interrogation by directly accusing the suspect, and the entire synergy will rotate around that accusation (Inbau et al., 2001), unfortunately such aggressive method can sometimes lead to false confession.
The Interview is a non-confrontational stage, the questions are not accusative, “the individuals verbal and non-verbal behavioural symptoms of deception are observed” (Kassin, 2010), and if conducted appropriately it can help to identify at this stage innocents from suspects. However, in such anxious conditions, innocent people will express same deceptive symptoms as the suspects, the line between which is which is very thin.
The interrogation treats the individual as if he/she is already guilty, there is no presumption of innocence, and this is a psychological game where patience is required. If the suspect is guilty it will take tremendous skills of the investigators to obtain confession on paper, a guilty person knows what not to say, but on the other hand, and that were this method shows weaknesses is when an innocent person is trapped in the system and ends up confessing something they didn’t do just to get out of it.
In the United States, it is permitted for police to show fake evidence and lie to suspects, in the case of an innocent person in such surreal situation, she/he will confess anything, feeling trapped under the weight of evidence (Kassin, 2010).
Since the Miranda’s rights, ethical issues have been improved, we can expect interview and interrogation methods to respect those rights and by so, letting any suspects use those rights whenever she/he wants it. On a legal level, besides interrogation method using somehow more confrontational psychological techniques, the use of physical violence is prohibited, however an attorney should be present with the suspect to confirm the ethic of the procedure.
Now, the psychological impact is more affiliated to the interrogation method, even though interview methods are less intrusive, being questioned by police officers, knowing one ‘self is innocent, isn’t by any means a pleasant experience. The psychological game of the mouse and cat, the constant accusations of guilt without the possibility of denial, the yelling, the fake evidence, the isolation from family and friends might turn anyone into psychological despair. Some personality traits are more at risks than others, people prone to compliance in society, avoiding conflicts or suggestibility and alteration of memories, anxiety, depression or psychological weaknesses, will suffer the abusive method on a deeper and more damaging degree not to forget that they might also have confessed at the same time a crime they have not committed.
Again, this is not about choosing one or the other, if both methods are used, they both provides positive results. However, as much as the first one seems more psychologically ethical it might also be too weak to undermine the offender’s mental strength; on the other hand the interrogation method by its offensive approach contributes to innocent causalities.
It requires tremendous skills and experiences to conduct an interview and an interrogation, besides obvious technical and strategy skills; an officer must also bear in mind the human and psychological side of the situation regardless whoever is in front of her/him. What we can say is that it is not just about the method but mostly about who is using it and how.
References
Inbau F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. P. (2001). Criminal interrogations and
confessions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Saul M. Kassin, Sara C. Appleby and Jennifer Torkildson Perillo (2010), Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
Saul M. Kassin (2008)The Psychology of Confession. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
| 2 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
Comments (1)