Should An Investigator Influence Of Interrogation

Of these are: To highlight the isolation and unfamiliar surroundings, the manuals instruct the police to display an air of confidence in the suspect's guilt and from outward appearance to maintain only an interest in confirming certain details (2). Such tactics are perfectly established to strip an individual of his innocence and make him give a confession thus incriminating one’s self. Therefore, such practice of interrogation and the secrecy it entails, is drastically contradicting in nature with the constitution, in that an individual may not be compelled to incriminate one’s self.

The first reason is that people trust confession is because of self-serving behavior and taking people at their face value (Kassin, 2005). The second reason is that detecting deception is a learned skill not a normal one that most people have. The third and final reason that people trust confession is that will being interrogated people can be coached what to say that aligns with the crime or they may overhear parts about the crime. Because of the amount of false confessions and the trust people put in believing them there needs to be some reform made in interrogation procedures. Three areas in particular need to be looked at and the first is the length of time for the interrogation. Many factors play a role in a person

“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).

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 a criminal investigation, there is the need to break down two things. Firstly, the investigation itself and secondly the investigator involved. It is of utmost importance that the criminal investigation is done accurately, failure to do so will have negative consequences on the society. Investigation involves the collection of facts, scenarios and situations which are directly or indirectly related with the case. Whereas investigator is the person who should observe, question, analyze and scrutinize the available details. Careful evaluation then helps to achieve the much needed evidence. Criminal investigation is one of the most essential functions of the Law Enforcement agencies, as it is their prime responsibility to maintain a secure environment and

Confessions have become one of the most valued pieces of evidence in the criminal justice system. What many people, including jurors, may not know is that the process to obtain a confession can vary greatly. Many confessions can be coerced by very abnormal and dangerous situations. A prime example of a suggestive interrogation with a false confession comes from the documentary titled Murder on a Sunday Morning. Alongside, the analysis of the confession given in this documentary will be the critical analysis of three separate academic articles with findings that could have better served the defendant of this case.

Renegotiation of reality occurs when, by virtue of the institutionalized process of police interrogations, the suspect perceives that his initial reality holds no value to the interrogator or to the outcome of the interrogation, when he lacks agency to defend his reality, and when there is no other option. In this paper, I will illustrate how each of these factors facilitates false confessions and will use the Norfolk Four case as my vehicle for exploration and analysis.

To develop an experimental paradigm to study the influence of psychologically based interrogation techniques on true and false confessions.

When questioning witnesses of a crime, detectives may choose a specific technique; one technique is the Reid Technique. The Reid Technique is a multi-step questioning method that pressures the witnesses or the accused to admit to the crime. It is used in North America. According to Professor Brent Snook, a psychologist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, the Reid Technique is “Starsky and Hutch”, where two hot head detectives “beat up” their suspects to encourage them confess (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/25/youre-guilty-now-confess-false-admissions-put-polices-favourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/). This paper will examine the steps of the Reid Technique, as well as reveal substantial evidence that this technique should be banned. This technique has led to false confessions. Not only does this mean that someone has been punished that isn’t guilty, but it also means the real criminal has not been found and punished. The arguments against the use of this technique are the following:

Police interrogate suspects on a daily basis, but how can they tell if the confession is real? We have all heard, at one time or another of someone confessing to a crime they didn’t commit. Then your next thought is “I would never confess to something I didn’t do”. The only way you can be a 100% sure of that is if you have been through an interrogation before. This paper is going to define “confession” and tell how an innocent person will confesses to a crime they didn’t commit. This paper will also show the history of interrogations.

“It was me. I did it. I’m guilty.” It’s what every interrogator is waiting for and hoping to hear. Any variation will do the job, as either is the heart of each and every confession. The main purpose of an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a suspect that they believe has lied or is guilty of the crime they’re investigating. They are looking for a confession. Confessions are the most damaging and influential piece of evidence of the suspect’s guilt that the state can use against a defendant (Leo, 2009). It makes sense. People instinctively trust confessions. After all, why would someone confess to a crime they did not commit? The mere idea that someone would admit to committing a crime they did not do boggles the mind simply because it just does not seem rational. However, the fact remains that false confessions do happen, and for a multitude of different reasons. This paper will begin with an examination of false confessions in general, then focus on the different types of false confessions, including what leads to their occurrence, and will conclude by discussing ways in which false confessions could be avoided.

This paper contains expert information snitching, evidence on eye witness testimony, and proven study on false confessions. Appendix 1 shows the leading causes of wrongful convictions in United States. The first credited study and research analysis on wrongful convictions will demonstrate the seriousness of this problem and the need for a resolution. Various other authors and reports have been reviewed for the purpose of this research paper.

So for an example, the investigator can say, this is a murder, the person was stabbed, and the motive was this person was caught having an affair. After the investigator comes up with his hypotheses he/she will then test it, if the evidence does not support his/her theory then he would start over on figuring out what, why and how it all occurred.

* Context of interrogation is always coercive. Although police powers may be small, psychological powers are very great

There is always an exception to every rule; some may fall within the scope of unethical when it comes to police. In 1939 the Supreme Court put an end to brutality and torture when it comes to retrieving information; it is against 4th Amendment which states it violates the due process (paraphrased pg., 71:Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2012). There is an exception to this rule which says an officer can use violence to stop/prevent violence. There is a great possibility that people will be killed if this information is not retrieved; violence to stop/prevent violence in this case violence is needed. This is an interrogation because an interview is simply gathering information but, interrogation is when an officer has reasons to believe that