Police
Deception is an integral part of the police arsenal during interrogation. The tactics and techniques of deception have been finely honed, and continue to improve to allow for effective interrogation and information retrieval. Within the framework of judicious police interrogation, the techniques and tactics can be employed effectively, efficiently, and ethically. A few, like the Reid Technique, have been criticized for their misuses and for their tendency to create false confessions (McKee, 2014). Other tactics and techniques do deserve to remain part of the overall law enforcement strategy, especially when the tactics and techniques preserve the integrity of the investigation. One of the most commonly used deceptive interrogation tactics is minimization. Minimization is used to engender trust and establish a bond of communication with the suspect. The law enforcement officer basically bluffs throughout the interview, downplaying the severity of the crime itself, feigning sympathy with the suspect's point-of-view, and reinforcing the suspect's alibi. Minimization is a tactic that does not necessarily need to adversely impact the validity of information gained during an interview, which is why minimization should continue to be used.
It is important to remember that interrogations of suspects in the police context are almost always "guilt-presumptive processes," (Redlich & Meissner, n.d., p. 3). Presumed guilt is potentially problematic, as it can entail confirmation bias that could sidetrack an investigation, lead to legal and ethical conundrums, and potentially lead to false confessions. However, it is also assumed that once law enforcement selects a suspect for interrogation, the suspect has already passed numerous tests and evaluations that lead to a reasonable enough suspicion of guilt to warrant using deception as a tactic. The experience of the presiding officers and the caliber of the law enforcement team are significant variables when determining the efficacy of using minimization and similar tactics in suspect interrogations.
Interrogations...
These individuals are at risk of either confessing to crimes they did not commit or otherwise compromising their rights by virtue of inappropriate police interrogation techniques (Gudjonsson, 2003), a fact that has increasingly been recognized by the courts in their evaluation of the constitutionality of the interrogation methods that were used by police during their confinement preparatory for trial (Kinports, 2007). Conclusion Taken together, the research indicated that police interrogation remains
" Another form of deception involves the use of imaginary witnesses that the suspect is told already explained the entire story to police. This is done in the hopes that the suspect will believe he or she is already caught so they tell the truth and confess. It is acceptable to use such deceptions in interrogations because of the person being interrogated didn't commit the crime they will not know many of
" In answer to questions 1 and 2, therefore, detectives Underwood and Freeman may be allowed to commit necessary misdemeanors or felonies in order to keep their undercover status from being revealed and compromised by invoking authorized criminality. Undercover police or detectives must engage in authorized crimes for two major reasons: to provide the suspects the change to engage in the target crime and to maintain a false identity or enhance access
How long will others in positions of power or wanting to be in positions of power remember that the gains do not outweigh the losses? In the best case scenario, it would have been personally satisfying to know that anyone who knew of this situation and did not act at least had some type of community hours. What would I have done in the case of Enron? It is easy
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now