Deceptive Interrogation Case Study

“It is difficult to prove a causal relationship between permissible investigative and interrogatory deception and testimonial deception.  Police freely admit to deceiving suspects and defendants.  They do not admit to perjury, much less to the rationalization of perjury.  There is evidence, however of the acceptability of perjury as a means to the end of conviction.  The evidence is limited and fragmentary and is certainly not dispositive” (Skolnick, 1982).

The officers that interrogated Cathy Woods used the Reid Model which is a nine step model of interrogation that is used to extract false confessions from suspects (Bennel,Forth,Pozzulo). The Reid model is the most used form of interrogation in the United States but has problems because the way it’s used puts a lot of stress on the suspects to confess to a crime they may not even have committed. For example, having interrogations that are hours even days long and denying suspects food, water and even being able to use the bathroom will make people confess just to end the interrogation, which is what happened to Cathy Woods. Cathy Woods’s false confession falls into the Coerced-compliant category because she confessed to a crime she knew she didn’t commit, but did it anyway to end the interrogation. Cathy Woods also vulnerable to false confessions because of her mental illness. To avoid false confessions such as Cathy Woods there must be safety nets in place that would be able to capture these inadequate interrogations. For instance, Saul Kassin a distinguished Professor of Psychology suggests we record all interrogations and have it reviewed by a judge before a trial starts. This way our chances of catching a false confession goes up and we can avoid people who are innocent from serving harsh

The issues presented in this case raise question to the admissibility of statements obtained from individuals engaged in custodial police interviews/interrogations and whether they are admissible against them in a criminal court when the individual has not been made aware of his constitutional rights and the statements are not freely provided, but are coerced or a product of harassment or a promise by authorities Likewise, “whether procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the fifth Amendment of the constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself are necessary”

During interrogation, police are allowed to make accusations, lie about or make up evidence, yell at the suspects or get in their faces. According to the law, police are allowed to use the tactic trickery or lying to receive a confession from the suspect. The assumption the police officers make is that no matter how many lies told, a person will not state they are guilty if they truly did not commit the crime. In the case shown in the video, Confession, the police told one of the men that he had failed a polygraph (lie detector) test, even though he had passed it. I believe this tactic is unjust. I admit, I tend to do this to people because I want to know if they are telling me the truth. However, when it comes to a person potentially being convicted and receiving the death penalty or time in jail, I believe the tactic that was used was not right. Joe Dick was interrogated for eight hours. He claimed that he was told every thirty seconds that he was lying and he was going to be sentenced to the death penalty. In Confession, Richard Leo made a valid point stating that people who are tortured will say anything to make the pain stop. Also, people who have the torture mechanism waved in their face will state that they are guilty to avoid being tortured. Joe had the death penalty waved in his face. He was given an ultimatum of the death penalty or tell the truth? In addition, the police officers repeated told Joe that he was lying and the lie detector proved this. What other

In recent years, there have been multiple high-profile cases of people being exonerated, often by DNA testing, after giving a false confession to a crime they did not commit. People who often fall into this trap are juveniles or those with a diminished mental capacity (Redlich, 2009). DNA testing has helped many innocent people that gave false confessions be free again. This trend brings up the question of how were they able to give a false confession.

Final Exam In the Netflix documentary series “Making a Murderer”, Brendan Dassey and his uncle, Steven Avery, are both tried for the murder of Teresa Halbach. It is said that Steven tied her down, raped her, killed her, then burned her body in a fire in his backyard. Dassey was taken in from school for interrogation and that’s when the case begins. I do not think Brendan Dassey should have been tried for the murder of Teresa Halbach because the interrogation was unfair, Dassey’s IQ is very low, and there’s no evidence convicting Brendan in the case.

During interrogations an officer can lie to a suspect to obtain information, with very few exceptions. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that it okay to lie to a suspect in order to obtain information with few exceptions. An exception to lying to a suspect would be telling a suspect that has been in a lengthy interrogation if they confess to a crime they will be able to go home (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012). If the lie will potentially illicit a false statement and gives an incentive to the accused in custody to give a false statement it will be considered inadmissible (Nici, Live Chat 8, 2012). In this instance even if Miranda was given this would violate the suspects’ rights, and the statement is inadmissible.

A police officer is morally obligated to lie on account of trying to stay ethical. (Ciske, 2009) How many criminals do you know that are volunteering to confess criminal activity? Social media in our society has added to everyone views on the conduct or misconduct of police officers. I believe the focus should be on public safety rather than how police use deception to get an individual to confess. A police officer using trickery to get a confession is no more different than a person lying on the witness stand. Crimes are being committed, and someone has to solve them. However, any statement made during interrogation without being Mirandized usually are thrown out of court. Miranda states that once a person in custody invokes the right to remain silent, whether before or during questioning, the interrogation must stop. (Hall, 2014) The purpose of Miranda is to reduce the risk that coerced confession would be admitted; therefore, police should not be responsible for an individual ranting off during interrogation. Suspects in custody have rights; it’s up to them to exercise their rights.

Even in the case of presenting false evidence, like DNA, fingerprints or video recorded material in order to get a confession from the suspect, participants found this procedure extremely coercive but apparently not coercive enough to elicit a false confession. According to above results, it seems that potential jurors do not seem to realize that there is a very important connection between coercive interrogations and false confessions. If jurors cannot be open to the idea of a false confession being a product of a psychological pressure under interrogation then this would definitely have a critical impact on the outcome of a trial.

As the employer I have no legal right to force or coerce this employee to take any medication, therefore there is no course of action that I should follow. However, if this employee is not able to perform his job, I have the right fired him. Keeping an employee that can created a danger environment on the workplace can subsequently have greater repercussions for the business.

Many of today’s interrogation models being utilized in police investigations have an impact on false confessions. The model that has been in the public eye recently is the social psychological process model of interrogation known as the “The Reid Technique.” There are two alternatives used by the police today to replace the Reid Technique, one is the PEACE Model and the other is Cognitive Interviewing. These methods are not interrogation techniques like Reid but interview processes.

In 1966, a milestone in Law Enforcement interrogation procedures was established through the case of Miranda vs Arizona. In the case of Orozco vs Texas, just a couple years later in 1969, the guidelines established by Miranda vs Arizona changed the ruling of Reyes Arias Orozco who self-incriminated himself without being read his Fifth Amendment rights while being interrogated in his home. Orozco vs Texas effected interrogation procedures due to Orozco being interrogated inappropriately in his own bed, early in the morning, and without being aware to his rights which clearly states within the Self-Incrimination Clause that, “The Fifth Amendment 's right against self-incrimination permits an individual to refuse to disclose information that

As mentioned above, there is very minimal research on judges, police, and jurors on their opinions and beliefs in the area of false confessions and police interrogations. These key characters in the legal system are important factors to produce more information in the area of false confessions as they are working in the legal system and being the first to witness wrongful convictions. However, one recent study has shown that judges have the same biases as the mock jurors (Lassiter, Diamond, Schmidt, & Elek, 2007, p. 225). Thus, this information can lead to many controversial questions regarding whether or not judges are aware of the biases that occur in their own courtroom? Are judges being unaware of the tactics used in interrogation rooms?

First off, The Pittsburgh Post bring’s up, “Statements can be complicated to document due to many police organizations fail to videotape interrogations” (Moushey). This example describes that many police agencies fail to record the interrogations that they are involved in which causes the cases to be unsolved for many years. To continue, New York Times claims, “Police use a variation of techniques to receive a certain disclosure, but the techniques used can be hard for the jury to comprehend” (Dolan). This confirmation proves that the techniques used to reveal evidence can not be understood by the court, therefore, recordings during interrogations are avoided. Moving on, New York Times explains, “Legal authorities claim that the best way to make sure confessions are truthful is to require detectives to document and record interrogations” (Dolan). This quote verifies that it should be essential for detectives and police to videotape questioning because they may be tricking victims into confessing. Finally, New York Times mentions, “Tape recording could prevent police from doing remarkable techniques and prevent false convictions” (Dolan). This citation clarifies that tape recording could prevent police from going the extra mile to find someone guilty in their case. Many police break the law by trying to find a victim guilty and tricking them into falsely confessing to a crime they

Hey, Melinda did you know “Deception can occur in any or all three stages of the detecting process during the investigation, interrogation, and court testimony” (Ciske, 2009). Criminals have every reason to expect that law enforcement officers are going to use deception against them, just as well as they lie to escape accusation. The law enforcement officers in this situation must take into account what sorts of methods are permissible and what the costs are. However, law enforcement officers have to take into account a confession is a substantial piece of evidence that can be presented in court. If the police have to lie to get a confession, it’s still up to the judge to determine if the suspect confession seems voluntary. People may disagree with police tactics during interrogation; however, police are not trained psychologist their deception during interrogating of a suspect has solved numerous of crimes. Therefore, law enforcement interrogations are videotaped inside the interrogation room to create an objective record of police questioning to which all interested and potentially interested parties may appeal, suspects, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. (Wakefield & Underwager, 2014)