Crisis Negotiation and Deception Crisis Negotiation Entails

Crisis Negotiation and Deception Crisis negotiation entails law enforcement communication and interaction with people threatening to cause actual bodily harm or property destruction. This may include hostage takers, suicidal individuals, stalkers, and barricaded subjects (McMains & Mullins, 2010). As can be exemplified by James Harvey's case, the distress characterizing such incidents coupled with lack of full control over the situation may tempt law enforcers to engage in deceptive tactics aimed at diffusing tensions (Frances, 1995; Lakhani, 2007). In 1988, Harvey held hostage a group of children in a class.

After lengthy negotiations, Harvey was offered videotaped pardon from the Governor in return for a public press opportunity where he would air his grievances. As a result, Harvey surrendered his weapon after which he was wrestled to the ground and arrested (Frances, 1995). The promises offered were never fulfilled. In a similar case - State vs. Sands - the immunity offered to the appellant was not upheld. In both cases, legal decisions made held that the promises were made under duress (Frances, 1995).

This essentially sets a legal precedent that is applicable to all other similar situations. The use of deception in crisis situations, especially for purposes of saving life, appears appropriate for two significant reasons. Firstly, the lies could be expedient to the extent that they easily dissipate the situation without any physical confrontation (McMains & Mullins, 2010). This is advantageous as it averts possible loss of life and destruction to property which are commonplace in physical confrontations. Secondly, lying seems justified through considerations of utility (Lakhani, 2007).

This point-of-view is grounded on the various justifications offered through philosophical reasoning. With regard to consequentialist reasoning, Sissela Bok asserts that lying in crisis situations is justified if the outcomes of deception outweigh the possible negative outcomes of the situation (Frances, 1995). In this case, lying is justified as a means to an end.

In yet another argument in support of deception, Grotius asserts that the principle of forfeiture makes lying acceptable when it is done to hostile people to whom the lies do not (in a strict sense) conflict with their rights (Frances, 1995). According to Grotius, people with evil intentions forfeit their right to expect true information (Frances, 1995). In essence, lying is advantageous because it is expedient. Further, it can help dissipate situations without necessarily escalating violence and/or confrontation.

While lying in crisis situations may be justified and resourceful, there is a fundamental contention which is the fact that the use of lies may squander the trust given to law enforcers and damage their credibility (Frances, 1995). This could be a major stumbling block in future negotiations. Indeed, as McMains & Mullins (2010) observe, the ability of routine lying to erode credibility and future trust cannot be underestimated. In this case, the problem does not only affect those that are lied to: it may also influence future decisions of bystanders.

As an example, deceptive tactics used upon Harvey were publicly broadcasted on the news. This is an example of public portrayal of deception that erodes trust in law enforcers. This kind of portrayal may be disadvantageous in future crisis situations because the hostage taker could have been a bystander in a situation where law enforcement.