Two alternative interrogation techniques are (1) Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate (PEACE), a less confrontational method used in England, and (2) the Kinesic Interview, a method that focuses on recognizing deception. REID TECHNIQUE.
Although deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable, they are not without limits. For instance, courts tend to be intolerant of police misrepresenting a defendant's legal rights, such as telling a suspect that his or her incriminating statements will not be used to charge the suspect (Commonwealth v. Baye, 2012).
In recent years, cases that question police deception in the interrogation room have been handled mainly in the lower courts, but the frequency with which such cases arise highlights the lack of clarity regarding this issue.
among the suspects there must be a careful selection of who among them is the weakest link where the interrogation will begin. By tricks and bluffs this weakest link will be told that his companions had already confessed. That this weakest link had dealt the fatal blow or that he received the lion's share of the loot in order to intrigue him.
Three sometimes conflicting principles underlie the law of confessions: the truth-finding rationale, the substantive due process or fairness rationale, and the related deterrence principle . The typology of interrogatory deception presented here discusses interview versus interrogation, Miranda warnings, misrepresentation of the nature or seriousness of the offense, role playing, misrepresentation of the moral seriousness of the offense, the use of promises, the misrepresentation of identity, and fabricated evidence. Police interrogatory deception can undermine public confidence and social cooperation and result in the conviction of innocent people. 62 notes
However, the law remains ambiguous regarding various types of police deception, and the acceptability of deception seems to var y inversely with the level of the criminal process.
Two alternative interrogation techniques are (1) Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate (PEACE), a less confrontational method used in England, and (2) the Kinesic Interview, a method that focuses on recognizing deception.
The investigator then asks “behavior-provoking” questions intended “to elicit different verbal and nonverbal responses from truthful and deceptive suspects.” The investigator will also ask some investigative questions during this stage. The Reid website states that the BAI:
There are nine steps to the Reid interrogation technique, briefly described below. 1. The positive confrontation. The investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates the person's guilt. If the person's guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be unequivocal. 2. Theme development.
3. Handling denials. When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage (likely to deny the accusations), the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The Reid website asserts that innocent suspects are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to “promptly and unequivocally” deny the accusation. The website states that “ [i]t is very rare for an innocent suspect to move past this denial state.”
The investigator must procure the suspect's attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator's theme rather than on punishment. One way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and the suspect.
The company also cites court cases upholding their methods or denying the admission of expert testimony that would link those methods to false confessions (e.g., U.S. v. Jacques, 784 F.Supp.2d 59, D. Mass. (2011)).
Reid and Associates, Inc. disputes the contention that their methods lead to false confessions. They argue that:
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to falsely claim that a suspect's confederate confessed when in fact he had not ( Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and to have found a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene when there were none ( Oregon v.
The officers repeatedly offered false assurances that they believed the child's injuries were accidental and that the defendant would not be arrested, threatened to arrest the defendant's wife, and falsely told the defendant that his child was alive and the defendant should disclose what he did to save his child's life.
Although deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable, they are not without limits. For instance, courts tend to be intolerant of police misrepresenting a defendant's legal rights, such as telling a suspect that his or her incriminating statements will not be used to charge the suspect ( Commonwealth v. Baye, 2012). It is important to note that because the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry is fact specific, determinations of the limits of police deception are case specific. In People v. Thomas (2014), the New York Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that the officers' conduct in eliciting incriminating statements from a father suspected of killing his infant son rendered the defendant's statements involuntary as a matter of law. The officers repeatedly offered false assurances that they believed the child's injuries were accidental and that the defendant would not be arrested, threatened to arrest the defendant's wife, and falsely told the defendant that his child was alive and the defendant should disclose what he did to save his child's life. The court ruled that these deceptive tactics, combined with a lengthy interrogation during which the defendant was hospitalized for suicidal ideation, all converged to overbear the defendant's will.
This interview and interrogation techniques course is applicable to you if you are in any for the following fields: 1 Law Enforcement 2 Corrections 3 Fire Service 4 Military 5 Intelligence 6 Loss Prevention 7 Risk Management
Interviewers along with the rest of the human population have been proven to still be woefully inaccurate at spotting liars by watching for nonverbal cues. Surprisingly the myths about body language cues and deception persist and a broad spectrum of investigators continue to cling to many of the disproved concepts.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to falsely claim that a suspect's confederate confessed when in fact he had not ( Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and to have found a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene when there were none ( Oregon v.
The officers repeatedly offered false assurances that they believed the child's injuries were accidental and that the defendant would not be arrested, threatened to arrest the defendant's wife, and falsely told the defendant that his child was alive and the defendant should disclose what he did to save his child's life.
Although deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable, they are not without limits. For instance, courts tend to be intolerant of police misrepresenting a defendant's legal rights, such as telling a suspect that his or her incriminating statements will not be used to charge the suspect ( Commonwealth v. Baye, 2012). It is important to note that because the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry is fact specific, determinations of the limits of police deception are case specific. In People v. Thomas (2014), the New York Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that the officers' conduct in eliciting incriminating statements from a father suspected of killing his infant son rendered the defendant's statements involuntary as a matter of law. The officers repeatedly offered false assurances that they believed the child's injuries were accidental and that the defendant would not be arrested, threatened to arrest the defendant's wife, and falsely told the defendant that his child was alive and the defendant should disclose what he did to save his child's life. The court ruled that these deceptive tactics, combined with a lengthy interrogation during which the defendant was hospitalized for suicidal ideation, all converged to overbear the defendant's will.