Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Crisis Negotiations
Ebert (1986) believes "there is absolutely no justification for preventing mental health professionals from participating in virtually all facets of hostage negotiation," (p. 580). As Hatcher, Mohandie, Turner & Gelles (1998) point out, most mental health professionals that do participate in any aspect of hostage negotiation do so "by invitation only in police-established hostage negotiation schools," (p. 461). With this training, the mental health professional is thus theoretically prepared to engage the perpetrator directly. However, the mental health professional is only prepared when the training provided is thorough and consistent, and in accordance with the parameters and goals of each crisis situation.
The pros of employing a psychologist as a primary negotiator are clear. Most significantly, the psychologist has expertise in human behavior and cognition and can apply that knowledge to making quick decisions. The psychologist can also provide post-traumatic stress intervention services to the hostage victims and members of the police force who were likewise affected. Retaining a core psychologist or group psychologist as a primary negotiator can also alleviate the burden placed on officers in crisis situations, allowing police forces to perform the duties necessary within their domain of expertise. Expertise...
Furthermore, a psychologist helps to create a more diverse team on the police force and could lead to a more collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to crisis management. Ebert (1986) adds that having a psychologist serve as primary negotiator may have financial benefits for the department because "it is more economical to train a psychologist in hostage negotiation than to train a member of the police in psychology," (p. 581).
However, there are some cons in using psychologists as primary negotiators. For one, many psychologists might lack the prerequisite field experience necessary to conduct hostage negotiations successfully. The training courses offer simulations, but the psychologist's merit is not tested until a field situation arises. Second, there are fears that the perpetrator might learn that the primary negotiator is in fact a psychologist and not a cop. Hatcher et al. (1998) claim that the perpetrator might resent being labeled as being mentally ill and react irrationally, potentially escalating the problem. Another reason why psychologists might be better off in ancillary roles like consultant or integrated team member is that they may not be ready, willing,…
References
Ebert, B.W. (1986). The mental health response team: An expanding role for psychologists. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 17, 6, 580-585.
Hatcher, C., Mohandie, K., Turner, J. & Gelles, M.G. (1998). The role of psychologists in crisis/hostage negotiations.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 455-472.
Hostage Negotiation Keeping people as hostages has happened all through history. In the recent years, political events in Algeria, Kenya and Vietnam show examples of such terrible acts. Criminals, mentally challenged, prisoners are usually the people involved in hostage taking. Hostage crises have prevailed due to escalations of family member-on-member, family member-on-employee, intoxicated colleague, household dispute situations, disturbed client-on-employee and disturbed employee-on-client violence at workplace. Those involved in hostage taking activities
Hostage Negotiations Following the deadly aftermath/fallout from the Attica prison riot in New York State in 1971 -- and from the bloody terrorist attack during the 1972 Olympic Games in Germany -- there have been attempts to change the way in which authorities go about crisis negotiation. This paper discusses the responses that authorities have had to these crisis situations and outlines the steps that have been taken to improve the
Deception techniques & lying There are situations in which lying or other deception techniques are used and are allowed as negotiation technique to save possible loss of life or to avert other such critical situations. Certain experts do not encourage the use of such techniques. Some say that lying or deception can only be used as last resort. The idea of using deception techniques if used regularly and randomly may damage
Hostage Negotiation The 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments have had serious impacts on modern hostage negotiations and will be examined in this paper. Elements that are to be considered include promise making, incriminating statements, as well as the planting of listening devices. Graham vs. Connor, State vs. Sands, and Taylor vs. Watters, among others, are some of the court cases that will be used in this discussion. Again, the impact of
Crises Negotiations The field of hostage negotiating did not develop on the front lines of police work, but, instead, in the broader political context, dealing specifically with the taking of hostages. In modern times, these events have been large-scale terrorist events, such as when terrorist took athletes hostage at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This helped hone the field of hostage negotiations, because of a belief that appropriate intervention and negotiation could
Crisis Negotiations There are numerous stages in a crisis scenarios. Crises can be seen as happening in stages that have different characteristics and require different skills to manage" (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.25). These stages are: pre-crisis, crisis/defusing, adaptation/negotiation, and resolution/surrender (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p.25). Pre-crisis does not refer to a specific event, but to an organization prior to a crisis. It is characterized by practice, planning, and prevention by