Essay on The Use of Deceptive Interrogation

“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).

There are those who would argue that undercover policing is unethical, however it is a central part of intelligence led policing. Undercover policing, sometimes referred to as covert policing is where officers go undercover, often as criminals in order to gain intel, evidence, get convictions and make arrest. However many would argue that this practice is unethical because it requires police officers to lie and engage in criminal activity. This paper will not take a stance on whether or not the practice of covert policing is ethical, but will instead examine the arguments and problems surrounding undercover policing. Which include; unchecked power, the use of deceit, authorized criminality, infringement of privacy rights, psychological stress placed on officers and its overall effectiveness.

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.

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.

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.

Our court system has imposed a few restrictions as to what LEOs can do to gain incriminating type statements from criminal suspects without violating their rights. Our Sixth Amendment has restrictions in place that holds officers responsible for how they obtain confessions from suspects. One example of that is the case of “Massiah v. United States (1964), where the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel in all formal criminal proceedings was violated when the government agents deliberately elicits incriminating responses from a person” (“Interrogations and Confessions”, n.d., p.

The first interrogation we watched in class was that of a 20-year-old named Joshua Tuttle. Mr. Tuttle was being charged with attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. He was messaging and supposed to be meeting up with a girl named Jesse who he thought was 13 or 14. Joshua was the focus of a sting operation and has been featured on the television program “To Catch a Predator”. When we picked up on the interrogation, Joshua was sitting across the table from the interrogator. Joshua’s chair was pushed up against the wall and in the corner of the room. This is good because it is supposed to make him uncomfortable. The table that sat between Joshua and the interrogator was cluttered with papers. This is not good because this gives the suspect something to look at besides the interrogator, which in turn can change the suspect’s body language and or answers.

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

Between February and March of 1966 the Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona took place (Worrall, 2015). In this case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona because he was accused of raping a woman. Miranda was interrogated by officers for two hours before confessing both written and orally. He was charged with kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. While this case is the main thing upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were three other cases backing their decision – Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Based on these three cases, the Supreme Court upheld that before any questioning a suspect must be aware that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation (Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v Arizona). This ruling has been implied in all criminal cases since and anytime these rights are not read to a suspect they are acquitted. Miranda vs. Arizona has been the face of a very big change in the way the criminal justice system is run and will continue to be for many years to come.

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”

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

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

Yes, an interrogation and investigator influence a suspect to tell the fact, sometimes to give incriminating proof that will be use in a consequent action. Interrogations are usually conducted in situations where there is not enough evidence to declare a confidence. In many cases, the suspect’s real guilt may not be 100% sure. If an investigator was required to be fully honest with a suspect, the interrogation would hum like this: Ted, I am not sure you direct this offense and Ted not have enough proof to act against you for it. So, I would like you to come clean to me so that we can criminal you and send you to prison. Perceptibly, under this condition, no suspect would ever admit. Out of necessity, as a result, interrogation relies at length on deceit and act.

While reading Chapter 9, I read about interrogation and I enjoyed it. While reading about interrogation I learned that, the rules that restrict police questioning of a suspect are, in at least one sense, fairly clear, through in another, they are not at all. (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013, p. 257) The warning themselves are basic and, while the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted some deviation from the written warning, they should be remembered by all law enforcement officers. (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013, p. 257) It is important to remember that these are warning, not rights in and of themselves. (Conser, Paynich, & Gingerich, 2013, p. 257) Custodial interrogation occurs (1) if words or actions which call for some verbal response