The Key Purpose Of An Interrogation

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

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court’s main concern can be seen in their conclusion regarding the process on in-custody interrogation. Due to the fact that such a process entails pressures that work to undermine an individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely (3), was a main concern of the Supreme

If an officer fails to read the defendant his or her rights before obtaining a confession, then the confession could be inadmissible based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. For instance, if Miranda were applicable to the situation then the confession would be inadmissible if the defendant’s rights were not read. Subsequently, the defendant’s Miranda warnings must be issued when they are taken into custody, the defendant’s statements are the result of an interrogation, and there is a law enforcement officer present (Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Academy, 2015). Additionally, interrogations include words or actions by law enforcement officers that can reasonably be expected to induce incriminating

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

This particular study is captivating because it narrows down the causes of wrongful convictions of innocent people, whether it’s the interrogators applying inappropriate methods of the Reid Technique, such as misclassification, coercion, psychological manipulation, and contamination. (Orlando) “The Reid Technique of interrogation consists of essentially three steps. Custody and isolation (i.e., the suspect is detained and isolated, anxiety and uncertainty are generated in order to weaken resistance). Confrontation (i.e., the suspect 's guilt is assumed and he or she is confronted with alleged incriminating evidence that may or may not be genuine; denials are rejected, even if they happen to be true, and the consequence of continued denial is emphasized), and minimization (i.e., the interrogator tries to gain the suspect 's trust and provides face-saving excuses for the crime, including suggesting that it was an accident or that the victim deserved it) (…) During the interrogation the investigators use tactics of imbedding trust to lure detainees to comply and achieve a legal outcome which could lead to reducing longer sentencing if the detainee confesses. Also if there are multiple co-perpetrators investigators look to probe the detainee that someone has cast blame on the individual, so therefore they must engage with the police and own up to their part in the crime (Douglas & Rita). The Reid Technique not only is it used illegitimately but it placing innocent individuals

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.

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

Interrogation- questioning a suspect or witness by law enforcement authorities. Once a person being questioned is arrested, he/she is entitled to be informed of his/her legal rights, and in no case may the interrogation violate rules of due process.

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)

One of the best training programs to implement into the police department is the Reid interrogation techniques. Interrogation and interviewing techniques became popular in 1947 by John E. Reid and Associates. Joseph P. Buckley stated that “The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation is now the most widely used approach to question subjects in the world (Buckley P. J., 2000).” There three- parts to the Reid process for solving a crime. The first stage that should be taking is to collect and analyze relative information from the crime scene thing that offers insight to the possible suspect and determine the direction an investigation should take. The second stage of the process interviewing people of interest using Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) (Buckley P. J., 2000). The Behavior Analysis Interview is a non-accusatory process that allows detectives to interview a suspect using a question and answer procedure to provoke a suspect to show non- verbal truthfulness or deception. The third stage, if the offender has not admitted to the crime an accusatory interrogation is administered (Leave no marks, 2007). The Reid interrogation technique is believed to be a fail proof technique ,however, there are some reservations against using this technique on juvenile offenders (Constitutional Law(n.d). Implementing the Reid technique into the police departments learning curriculum will truly

First, it is important to recognize that in both criminal and HUMINT investigations, interrogation typically takes place at a time when there has been no judicial determination that the person being interrogated is guilty of a crime or possesses useful information. Thus, given the considerable resources that may be invested in the interrogation process, especially for intelligence interrogations, one could argue that it is important to have an effective screening process in place to ensure that only those individuals with a relatively high potential for responsibility and/or knowledge

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”