Deception and Coercion in Police Interrogations

Investigation Versus Interrogation: Two Distinct Approaches

Police are taught that the stance taken in an investigation is "non-accusatory," while interrogation is "accusatory." Yet when a suspect is investigated through a formal interview, police are taught to take notes from the beginning, because "when faced with silence between each question and given time to think about his deceptive response, the deceptive subject experiences greater anxiety and is more likely to display behavior symptoms of deception." There is no corresponding description of responses for the innocent subject who is being questioned, except to note that "an innocent suspect may become confused or flustered when a rapid-fire approach is used" (Inbau, p. 7).

Interrogation is described from the outset as "accusatory." According to the authors of the standard police manual, "deceptive suspects are not likely to offer admissions against self-interest unless they are convinced that the investigator is certain of their guilt." The authors go on to describe how the officer is to convey absolute confidence in the suspect's guilt until the suspect loses confidence and becomes convinced that he or she has been found out. The process is described in detail: the preliminary tactic is that the investigator will "make statements, rather than ask questions." These tactics also dominate the conversation, because "for someone to be persuaded to tell the truth, that person must first be willing to listen to the investigator's statements." Note-taking is forbidden during an interrogation because it may inhibit the suspect's willingness to make statements against self-interest. However, "after the suspect has fully confessed... should written notes be made documenting the details of the confession" (Inbau, p. 9).

The bias built into this framework is striking. In the advice given to police interrogating suspects at the scene of a crime, the manual assumes guilt as a starting point. For example, when a suspect driving a stolen vehicle has been pulled over and waives his Miranda rights, the officer is deliberately advised to say: "We know you took this car. Did you take it just for a joy ride, or were you going to use it as a get-away car for a robbery?" (Inbau, p. 10). The framing of the question forecloses any presumption of innocence.

References

Barker, T. and Carter, D. (1990). Fluffing up the evidence and covering your ass: Some conceptual notes on police lying. Deviant Behavior, Vol. 11(1).

Conti, R.P. (1999). The psychology of false confessions. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, Vol. 2(1). Department of Psychology. Retrieved November 26, 2007.

Department of the Army. (2005). U.S. Army Intelligence and Interrogation Handbook: The Official Guide on Prisoner Interrogation. Guildford, CT: The Lyons Press.

Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogation and Confessions: A Handbook. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Inbau, F.R., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P., and Jayne, B.C. (2004). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Leo, R.A. (1992). From coercion to deception: The changing nature of police interrogation in America. Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 18(1–2).

Panzarella, R. (1987). Police deception tactics and public consent in the United States and Great Britain. Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 2(2).

Underwager, R.C. and Wakefield, H. (1995). Seminar on child sexual abuse. Library Resources: Institute for Psychological Therapies. Retrieved November 26, 2007.