Interrogations and Confessions Flashcards
Police Interview
Goal: Gain information that furthers investigation Atmosphere: Typically cordial, comfortable atmosphere Target: Witness and/or person of interest Assumptions: None
Police Interrogation
Goal: Obtain a confession Acquiring info that might help investigation Atmosphere: Uncomfortable - physically & psychologically Target: Suspect Assumption: Guilty knowledge
Historical perspective on Interrogations
1900-1980 typically coercive
Replaced by psychological methods-deceit and trickery
Good techniques to obtain useful information
Establish rapport with interviewee
Ensure interviewee understands ‘rules’ of interview
Use open-ended questioning
No interviewer bias
The Reid Model
It is absurd to believe that a suspect who knows he did not commit a crime would place greater weight and credibility on alleged evidence than his own knowledge of his innocence.
A normal person would not confess to a crime they did not commit and would maintain their innocence.
Anger and mistrust towards the investigator
3 Stages of the Reid Model
- ) Gather evidence
- )Conduct interview to assess guilt
- Non-accusatorial - )Conduct interrogation to obtain confession
- Accusatorial
- 9 steps, many psychological ‘tactics’
The Reid Model Step 1
1.) Direct Positive Confrontation Presentation of fact synopsis to suspect Reference to evidence -Real or fictional Suspect told that s/he involved in crime Behavioral observation of suspect Restatement of confrontation -Stronger or weaker
The Reid Model Step 2
2.) Theme Development
Transition phases from confrontation
Propose reasons that will justify commission of the crime
–Victim asking for it, result unintended
Behavioural assessment of suspect to choose proper theme
Longest portion of 9 steps
The Reid Model Step 3
3.) Stopping Denials
Starts during direct positive confrontation
Absence of denials in step 2 indicates probable guilt
–BUT, both guilty and innocent deny crime??
Interrogator recognizes/stops denial
Progress indicated by cessation or weakening of denials
The Reid Model Step 4
4.) Overcoming Objections
Suspect proposes a reason why he allegedly did not commit the crime
–Normally offered by guilty person
–Indicates progress if given after denials
Handled differently than denials
–First listening and accepting
Proper handling of objections helps overcome subject’s defences
The Reid Model Step 5
5.) Getting the Suspect’s Attention Suspect is on defensive, tense, confused Themes work only if suspect is listening --Verbal techniques to command attention Sincerity --Establish understanding & concern --Physical gestures --Physical closeness
The Reid Model Step 6
6.) The Suspect Quiets and Listens Physical signs of surrender begin to appear --Show sympathy, understanding Urge suspect to come clean Themes shortened --Lead toward alternatives Eye contact --Most important at this point --Verbal and physical techniques Tears = guilt
The Reid Model Step 7
7.) Alternatives, face-saving explanations
Non-threatening to suspect
–Concern some minor aspect of crime
Give choice between acceptable & unacceptable reason
One alternative stressed
- -Lead subject to choose positive alternative
- -Either choice = guilt
The Reid Model Step 8
8.) Bringing Suspect into Conversation
Acceptance of one alternative reinforced
Suspect encouraged to talk about aspect of offence
Encourage full confession
Use of realistic words introduced by interrogator
Initial corroboration of confession
Oral witnessing of admissions by 2 persons
The Reid Model Step 9
9.) The Confession
Reduction of oral statement into written, typed, or electronically recorded form
Voluntariness of statement established along with corroboration of details
Suspect’s signing of statement is witnessed by 2 or more persons
Categorization of strategies in the Reid Model
Minimization techniques:
“Good cop”
Show sympathy, understanding and respect
Good-cop, bad-cop
“People make mistakes”
Offers of sympathy, face-saving excuses, moral justification for the crime
Police not allowed to explicitly offer leniency
–OK if suspect believes confession will result in leniency
Maximization techniques: “Bad cop” Exaggerate the seriousness of the crime and charges Assert firm belief in suspect’s guilt Includes knowledge-bluff trick
Problems with the Reid Model
1.) Detecting deception
–low ability, no improvement with experience
2.) Investigator bias
–begin with initial guilty belief
–unknowingly seek to confirm expectation
–remember the “confirmation bias”?
–impact on interviewee behaviour
defensive, appear guilty – even when innocent
3.)Coercive nature=false confessions
Criteria for a voluntary confession
Look for:
Threats/promises?
Oppression?
–Distasteful/inhumane conduct involuntary
Operating mind?
–Sufficiently aware of what (s)he is saying & to whom
Degree of police ‘trickery’?
- -In general, allowed
- -BUT, not “so appalling as to shock the community”
Interrogation in Court
North American courts require confessions given:
–By competent person
–Voluntarily actions
Confessions extracted via explicitly coercive tactics are inadmissible;
Confessions resulting from subtle psychological coercion often admitted
R. v. Oickle (2000)
PEACE model
Planning and Preparation Engage and Explain Account Closure Evaluation
Pros & Cons of Videotaping Confessions
Benefits:
Protects citizens from coercion
Protects police against false allegations
Allows courts to make more informed decisions
Potential problems:
Videotaping interrogations must be done with caution
Subtle factors influence decisions of guilt or innocence
False Confession
When an individual confesses to a crime they did not commit or exaggerates involvement in a crime they did commit
Retracted Confession
Confession that confessor later declares to be false
-May or may not have been false confession
Disputed Confession
Confession later disputed at trial
–Not necessarily false or retracted
Legal technicality, suspect disputes, etc.
3 Types of false confessions
Voluntary False Confessions
Coerced-Compliant False Confessions
Coerced-Internalized False Confessions
Voluntary False Confessions
Occurs without being prompted by the police
Can be result of:
desire for notoriety
inability to distinguish fact from fantasy
attempt to protect the real offender
need to be punished
Example: The Lindbergh case
Coerced-Compliant False Confessions
Occurs in response to a desire -To escape further interrogation or to -To gain a promised reward Confessor knows they did not commit the crime Unlike voluntary false confessions -Caused by coercive police tactics Like voluntary false confessions -Confessor knows they didn’t do it **Most common
Coerced-Internalized False Confessions
Results from highly suggestive interrogations
–Confessor comes to believe that they did commit the crime (i.e., ‘internalizes’)
Some people more susceptible to this type of confession (Gudjonsson, 1992)
Source monitoring errors
–Do I remember that or did someone tell me that?
Risk Factors for False Confessions
Situational & Personal
Situational Risk Factors in False Confessions
1.)Custody and isolation
Isolation increased anxiety
–Increases feeling of “I need to get out of here”
Usually involves fatigue & sleep deprivation
–Increase suggestibility
–Impair decision-making
Isolation + physical characteristics of room + pressure to submit to authority
–Highly stressful!
2.)Process of confrontation
General tendency to avoid confrontation
If outcome is inevitable look for shortest path (path of least resistance)
–Despair, learned helplessness, etc.
–Ultimately leads to compliance
False evidence increases likelihood of internalization
3.) Minimization
Personal Risk Factors in False Confessions
1.)Personality characteristics
Compliance:
Tendency to go along with authority
Key factor in coerced-compliant confessions
Suggestibility:
Tendency to internalize info
Key factor in coerced-internalized confessions
2.)Intelligence
Mental Retardation:
Tendancy to want to please
Acquiescence bias: Tendency to say “yes”, no matter the question
Impaired ability to see the consequences
3.)Psychopathology Common symptoms of mental illness--> increased suggestibility & compliance: Distorted perceptions & memories Reality monitoring problems Impaired judgment Heightened anxiety Mood disturbance Lack of self-control Inability to anticipate consequences
Resisting Interrogative Influences
Ability to resist:
Maintain focus on long-term goals
Not distracted by pleasing interrogator
Control attention
Access long-term memory and integrate new info
Control emotions to use above info
Possess willpower to persist in resistance
Motivation to resist:
Must maintain focus on long-term goals
Not those promoted by the interrogator
Perceived availability, feasibility of alternatives
Know legal rights to stop interrogation, an attorney, avoid self-incrimination
Know you’re innocent and can establish innocence
Need sense of self-efficacy
Interrogation tactics designed to impair motivation
Convince suspect resistance is futile and hurts the suspect’s long-term legal interests
Impairs general motivation through distress or fatigue
Fundamental attribution error
Belief actions result from person’s ‘nature’, rather than situation
Neglecting to consider situational influences on behaviour
Interrogation forces represent substantial situational influence
