Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques Term Paper

Download this Term Paper in word format (.doc)

Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formatting

Excerpt from Term Paper:

Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

Interviewing and interrogation is an imperative component of the criminal justice system, particularly in cases with limited or non-existent physical evidence. In cases such as these, the information gleaned from interviews and interrogations typically make up the body of the evidence against a particular suspect or number of suspects, hence the importance of learning and practicing effective interview and interrogation techniques. For the purposes of this paper, I will begin by discussing the differences between an interview and interrogation, in addition to the differences between a witness and a criminal suspect. I will then discuss the various techniques imployed by law enforcement investigators, to include the popular Reid Technique of interrogation.

An investigative interview typically precedes an interrogation. In many cases, interviews of potential witnesses -- who at the time of interview commencement are typically not considered criminal suspects -- reveal key information leading to the identification and/or apprehension of one or several suspects. An interview is conducted in a casual, non-accusatory fashion, in simple question-and-answer (Q&A) format, the purpose of which is to glean as much information regarding the specific details of the crime as possible. These details could include the time and place of the crime, the specific nature of the crime -- robbery, assault, homicide, etc. -- the number of persons involved in the crime and their physical descriptions. Interviews typically take place in a setting that promotes the physical and emotional comfort of the witness, such as the witness's home or a place of neutral ground (Thakur, 2010).

By contrast, an interrogation of a criminal suspect typically takes place in an interrogation room or other venue designed to give the investigating officer the upper hand. The general nature of the interrogation -- aggressive or nonaggressive -- largely depends on the nature of potential offender, i.e. emotional or non-emotional. While emotional offenders are often first-time offenders who committed the offense with little to no pre-meditation -- and typically feel remorse after committing the crime -- non-emotional offenders are typically professional criminals who feel very little remorse, if any, and as a result are more difficult to illicit a confession from. In order to determine if a potential offender is emotional or non-emotional, investigators gather the following information prior to engaging in an interrogation:

The suspect's name, age, profession or occupation.

The suspect's financial status, criminal history (if any), and relationship to the victim (if any).

The victim's name, age, profession or occupation.

The victim's financial status, criminal history (if any), and relationship to the suspect (if any).

The time and place the crime was committed.

Crime modus operandi.

Physical evidence if available.

Information gleaned from witness interviews if available.

If, after gathering this information, it is determined that the suspect is likely an emotional offender, the interrogation technique is typically empathy-based, in which the investigator attempts to ingratiate himself to the suspect by presenting an understanding, non-judgmental demeanor designed to invoke the suspect's trust and so encourage his confession. If physical evidence and/or witness information is available, the investigator will typically present this information in a sympathetic, matter-of-fact but non-aggressive way, after which the vast majority of emotional offenders will admit to their involvement in the crime (Thakur, 2010).

By contrast, non-emotional offenders will likely be resistant to purely factual and/or evidence-based interrogation techniques, and so require a different approach to illicit a confession. By and large, the most popular approach to illiciting a confession from non-emotional offenders is the "Reid Technique," as developed by John E. Reid, criminal investigator and founder of a private polygraph firm in 1947. The Reid Technique, as outlined in Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (2004), is based on the following three part process of solving a crime:

1. Collection and analysis of evidence/information relative to the crime scene, victim and potential witnesses.

2. Witness interviews, commonly referred to as the "Behavior Analysis Interview," conducted in simple Q&A format.

3. Interrogation of suspects and/or dishonest witnesses designed to illicit true information or confession of perpetration (Inbau, Reid, Buckley & Jayne, 2004).

As the purpose of interrogation is to illicit truth, interrogation tactics must be persuasive enough to make a guilty person confess, but not so persuasive as to make an innocent person confess to crime he has no recollection of committing. At no time should an investigator attempt to persuade a person of his involvement in a crime he does not remember. For the purposes of this paper, we are concerned primarily with interrogation techniques designed to illicit a confession from a non-emotional offender who clearly recollects committing the offence.

Based on the notion that resistance to confession is motivated by the desire to avoid the consequences of a crime, the Reid Technique attempts to reduce perceived consequences by employing "soft" language in reference to the crime. For example, in the case of a homicide, an investigator might suggest that a suspect "caused the death of a victim" as opposed "murdered" the victim. In addition, an investigator employing the Reid technique will avoid referring to the potential sentence for a particular crime, and will not directly answer suspect inquiries as to the sentence she is facing. Another component of the Reid technique is the showing of compassion, patience, and understanding of why the suspect might have committed the crime, which reinforces the offender's own justification of her criminal actions, potentially resulting in an admission of guilt. The Reid technique is based on the assumed "victim mentality" of offenders, essentially referring to their inclination to blame external forces -- such as the actions of the victim or society as a whole -- for their criminal actions (Jayne & Buckley, 2011).

More specifically, the Reid Technique can be broken down into the following steps:

1. Direct Positive Confrontation, in which the investigator advises the suspect that the evidence suggests he is responsible for the committed crime. While this may or may not be true, it has proven effective in deciphering innocence or guilt based on the suspect's reaction to direct positive confrontation. While an innocent person who knows he is innocent will not hesitate to challenge this statement, a guilty person -- though he might verbally deny involvement -- might exhibit telling symptoms of guilt such as a suddenly dry mouth, flushed or pale complexion, and excess fidgeting.

2. Theme Development, in which the investigator presents a scenario of guilt and motivation in uninterrupted monologue form. For example,

"Jim, I think you acted out of desperation because of your financial situation. I don't think you are a common criminal who enjoys doing things like this. I think you tried hard to keep up with your utility bills, rent and car payments but kept falling further and further behind. Because you are conscientious and want to pay your bills on time you saw this as your only chance to catch up financially. In a moment of desperation you saw that man, who was obviously well dressed and who had plenty of money, and decided on the spur of the moment to do this." (Jayne & Buckley, 2011)

It is important to note that the most successful themes treat a non-emotional offender like an emotional offender, insofar as they exhibit sympathy for the offender and understanding of the offender's motivation.

3. Discouragement of Denial, in which the investigator attempts to prevent the suspect from denying involvement in the crime. This is based on the notion that the more often a suspect denies involvement, the more difficult it becomes for her to confess involvement in a crime.

4. Step Down, in which the investigator decreases the intensity of the interrogation after the suspect's denial. Once again, this step is designed to reduce the frequency and intensity of a suspect's denial.

5. Redirect Attention to Theme, in which the investigator draws the suspect's attention back…[continue]

Cite This Term Paper:

"Interviewing And Interrogation Techniques" (2011, April 09) Retrieved October 24, 2016, from

"Interviewing And Interrogation Techniques" 09 April 2011. Web.24 October. 2016. <>

"Interviewing And Interrogation Techniques", 09 April 2011, Accessed.24 October. 2016,

Other Documents Pertaining To This Topic

  • Interrogation of Michael Crowe the Movie

    Michael Crowe: A Case of Poor Interrogation Technique There is no single correct way to conduct an interrogation, just as there is no single correct way to write a novel or to design a building or to raise a child. However, there are certainly a number of incorrect ways to interrogate a subject, and the 2002 movie The Interrogation of Michael Crowe unfortunately demonstrates a number of them. "Unfortunately" because the

  • Deceptive Techniques Used by Cops

    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

  • Need for an Organizational Policy on Security Interviews and Security...

    Security Interviews and Interrogation THE WHAT's AND THE HOW's Security Interviews and Security Investigations The Difference Offhand, interrogations are conducted with criminal suspects, while interviews are held with witnesses to crimes and with job applicants (Stephens, 2014). All kinds of questions can be asked when interrogating suspects. But certain questions are not allowed when interviewing job applicants. These questions include age, the applicant's children and number of marriages, disability, race or ethnicity, marital status,

  • Alternative Interrogation Method With the

    .. information or a confession, punishing him for an act he... has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him (qtd. "United Nations"). The effects of the Abu Gharib scandal, and the other interrogation concerns coming from Guantanamo Bay, led to the recently passed Military Commissions Act, which further clarifies the United States' position on the use of alternative interrogation methods and what is and is not

  • Interview Techniques and Tactics

    Tactics and Techniques of Successful Interviews Interviewing is definitely an art form. There are a number of different tactics and techniques that law enforcement agencies utilize depending on the unique elements of each individual situation. Still, there are some techniques that prove strong in almost any situation. Thus, the technique of theme development and alternative questioning are incredibly useful across situational contexts, making them a tried and proven interview tactic. One of

  • Criminal Investigations History of Criminal Investigations the

    Criminal Investigations History of criminal investigations The first "detective force" dates back to 1750, when a small group of community members called the "Take Thieves" banded together and rushed to crime scenes to investigate (Swanson, 2003). This group, spearheaded by Henry Fielding, eventually led to the founding of a police force in London (Swanson, 2003). The next famous "father of criminal investigation" is Robert Peel, who authored the twelve "Peel's Principles," outlining

  • Personalities and Motivations of Murderers

    Nonetheless, Bill never hurts other people simply because he thinks that it is irrational to hurt others. He thinks that any rational person would be like him and not hurt other people. Does Bill really understand that hurting others is morally wrong? (Nichols, 2002, p. 285)." This presents some interesting directions of thought. However, it is time to go into the relationship between serial murderers and forensic psychology as it

Read Full Term Paper
Copyright 2016 . All Rights Reserved