View this document in it's full glory by downloading the pdf here.
The primary purpose of a Police Interrogation [PI] is to obtain a confession, or other critical information about the crime, from an interviewed suspect (e.g. the names of criminal associates). PIs operate on the basic assumption that suspects are generally unwilling to cooperate because of the shame or fear they reserve for the crime committed. Thus, in pursuing the truth, police officers are guided by manuals based on techniques of social influence and/or persuasion that commonly use pressure, deception and manipulation tactics to ascertain truth. A variety of police manuals utilizing deception strategies will often sanction the following practices:
Serious ethical concerns have been raised over these law enforcement tactics, sparking considerable discourse regarding their efficacy and consequences.
Proper execution of an investigation is essential to the investigative process in every country’s legal arena. The interview itself is sometimes perceived as a simple exchange in conversation, but, in fact, demands extensive training and practice. This is mainly to guarantee that an exchange between an interviewer and interviewee will produce the desired ends (e.g. relevant and reliable evidence). Thus, the manner in which the interview is carried out may outline the outcomes of a case.
Interviewing witnesses and victims is as essential to the investigative process as is interviewing the suspect(s); however, the bulk of investigator training is primarily focused on honing interviewing skills towards the latter. Police tend to engage witnesses using an open-style interview – followed by a request for a statement on their eye-witness accounts (usually in written form) – and less often record (audio/visual) the interview itself. Thus, a consequence is the loss of vital details.
What is more, it was once thought that witnesses/victims fitting a profile of vulnerable (e.g. having physical disabilities) lacked the credibility to stand trial. However, recent efforts, both by legal personnel and researchers, have made strides to advocate the incorporation of special communication aids (e.g. live television links). Such matters were undertaken to facilitate more appropriate interviewing conditions for individuals’ special needs (e.g. appropriately matching the difficulty level of questioning). It must be noted that research concerning this type of interviewing is considerably limited and should be widened.
Police interviews targeting a suspect(s) of a crime are primarily concerned with obtaining a confession rather than obtaining facts. However, it has been found that very few suspects change their position from a denial to an admittance of guilt, and the vast majority of this group tend to confess just before the interview. Thus, police tactics – specifically, procedures used to persuade suspects into confessing guilt within an interview, are effective in only few cases. It has been found that in only 23% of interviews a confession is obtained and in 25% a partial admission. In 29% suspects deny involvement, and in 6% suspects remain silent. Current research distinguishes between two styles of interviewing: ‘humanity’ (i.e., interviewers are perceived as empathetic and sympathetic) and ‘dominance’ based approaches (i.e., case-oriented interviews of an aggressive/ impatient nature). The latter style is more often used to dictate the interviewing process and has been most associated with crime denial. On the other hand, the former was found to make suspects feel more respected and comfortable, and thus, more willing to confess.
Ultimately, the interrogation techniques used by law enforcement demands various levels of deception, manipulation and/or persuasion to achieve desired ends. As Gudjonsson (2003) noted, investigators often feel justified working on a “lower moral level” with the belief that they serve a “higher purpose”. Available interrogation manuals focus less on ethical guidelines and/or provide a mixed stance (e.g. some manuals may condone the use of some forms of manipulation while other manuals may condemn these same practices). Although some authors of the manuals recommend the use of threats and/or other forms of forcible influence, most advocate not lying to suspects; however, all manuals describe interrogative techniques based on manipulation and deception. Many are beginning to acknowledge the dangerous consequences of using such techniques such as the violation of a suspect’s basic rights, the obtainment of false confessions, and in extreme cases, the use of violent threats or acts by police officers.
Police interviewing is an area of law enforcement primarily driven by instinctive judgment and investigative experience. As such, there is an urgent need for more research on the police interrogation process to determine the efficacy of current methods. Further, more efforts must be made to include ethical considerations into law enforcement training.
EAPL-S publications are in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without the permission from the European Association of Psychology and Law Student Society (EAPL-S). EAPL-S encourages you to reproduce them and use them in your efforts to improve awareness of issues in psychology, corrections and law. Citation of the European Association of Psychology and Law as a source is appreciated. However, using these materials inappropriately can raise legal or ethical concerns, so we ask you to use these guidelines: