Need for an Organizational Policy on Security Interviews and Security Interrogations

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, political beliefs and party, faith or religion and sexual orientation or preference (Stephens).

Interviews and interrogations are also conducted differently. Female witnesses differ in perception from male witnesses (Stephens, 2014). Women tend to focus on the suspect's eyes to sense his or her motive, while men tend to take note more of the build and arm length. Many experts say that children are the best witnesses in general. Their recall of incidents should, therefore, be protected. Interviewing them should be left to expert investigators. Very young children should be allowed to freely speak rather than asked specific or leading questions. But in the overall, investigators should cultivate rapport with the witnesses. Among the techniques in establishing rapport with witnesses are mirroring or matching, reading their body language and the Reid Technique (Stephens).

Legal Issues

These mainly surround the use of trickery and deceit (Reid, 2014). Interrogators depend very much on the value of implication and innuendos when eliciting responses from suspects. It is admitted that almost every interrogation has at least an implied or veiled deceit. The investigator often tells the suspect that he has no doubt that he committed the crime and wants to find out why he did it. This is often not the true purpose of the interrogation but to establish rapport with the suspect. The investigator may even express the confidence that the suspect is decent and honorable. Legally, these intentionally false statements are only the investigator's own beliefs and are not considered trickery or deceit. There is a distinction between stating a false belief, which is generally considered acceptable, and one of an extreme kind, which can even discourage or suppress a confession. False statements meant to obtain a confession or admission should not lead to a point of producing false evidence. A legal guide, which evolved from the Cayward case, was made between false assertions, which are often acceptable, and fabricating evidence, which is not permissible. The Cayward case produced a false crime laboratory report. Another example of fabricated evidence is producing an audiotape of a pretended eyewitness. Deliberate falsehoods, which are not related to the facts of the crime, are not allowed and should be avoided. Investigators may not lie about legal or administrative procedures or issues (Reid).

These are the guidelines for investigators in determining if their false statements may suppress a possible confession (Reid, 2014). First, the investigator may not express a false belief or opinion on legal issues, such as the suspect's past offense, if any. Second, investigators may use visual materials but not producing them from manufactured evidence through deceitful means. Third, investigators must use much caution in making false or insinuating statements with suspects with mental or intellectual defects who may believe the investigators' false statements more than their own recall of events, persons or items. And investigators may not directly connect the suspect to a crime when a reasonable recall is not possible or reliable on account of intoxication or trauma or repression. In the overall, lying to suspects should be the last option in overcoming their weak denial. If the suspect catches the investigator lying, the investigator will cease to be credible and the suspect in custody can opt to use his right to remain silent or seek out an attorney. The investigator must also be able to explain his reason for using deception with the suspect during the court trial.

Organizational Policy

Many law enforcement interrogators use different psychological approaches in dealing with suspects. The organization's policy may adopt or devise any number of policies and strategies that will work towards eliciting and obtaining a confession from a suspect. These include:

A Basic Strategy -- this is used by most civilian law enforcers, who derive general information first and then proceed to details. However, this is not too easy to do, as they have to follow strict legal procedures.

Establishing Rapport at the Start

The investigator must right away make his authority clear with the suspect. While doing so, the investigator should also try to elicit confidence in the suspect. Trust is important in encouraging the suspect to provide information and to cooperate. The suspect should be made to understand the importance of providing accurate information. Possibilities of danger, legal violations or moral responsibility may be stressed.

Free Discourse

When harmony or rapport has been established, the interrogator should provide the suspect or subject all possible encouragement and conditions to feel at ease and relate all the information he knows or has. The interrogator should resist interrupting or guiding the free flow of the subject's narration or expression of information and events.

Questions to Ask

When the suspect appears to have given all or the most substantial information, the interrogator or interviewer should begin to ask general questions first and to complete certain important or relevant information. If the interrogator or interviewer finds any important inconsistency or falsehood in the information given, he should call attention to it and ask general questions about it. He, however, should not immediately pounce on the falsehood or inconsistency and first summarize the information given and then let the subject or suspect discover the falsehood or inconsistency himself or herself.