Interrogation Techniques and False Confessions

Interrogations are a crucial part of any investigation process. An effective Interrogation can help the Investigating officer get a confession out of a guilty person and gather more information from an eyewitness or an accomplice. There are different ways in which the investigative officer can approach the witnesses, accomplices, or criminal suspects in terms of an interrogation technique. Generally speaking, there are two methods of Interrogation – The accusatory method and Information-gathering method.

Also Read: Psychological Autopsy and Forensic Investigation

In the United States, the police follow a more accusatory method of interrogation. This method is highly structured and focused, following a carefully researched procedure. As the name suggests, this interrogation technique is more accusatory. Here, the flow of communication needs to be “95:5,” which means the interrogator needs to be talking 95% of the time, and the suspect should only speak 5% of the time. The reason behind this communication flow is that the interrogator does not need to ask any more questions to the subject and gather information regarding the crime events. The interrogator already has the information and is trying to get a confession or a confirmation from the suspect of the information that the interrogator already knows or is highly suspect. This interrogation method is more confrontational and presumes the suspect’s guilt. It mainly consists of two phases. In the first phase, the suspect undergoes a non-accusatory interview process where the police determine whether the suspect is guilty or not based on some non-verbal behavioral cues, as well as linguistic and paralinguistic styles indicative of deception. After the suspect’s guilt is established, the interrogator begins the interrogation of the suspect, which is the second phase. Here, the interrogator employs certain psychologically manipulative tactics to get a confession out of the suspect. One drawback of this interrogation technique is that it may lead to false confessions. The famous Reid Technique is an example of an accusatory method of interrogation.

Since the number of false confessions increased, in 1984, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was enacted in England and Wales. This act made it mandatory to record custodial interrogations and allowed the judges to prohibit the admission of any confession acquired through a coercive technique. Under the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), many European countries banned the accusatory method and now practice an information-gathering interrogation method such as the PEACE technique. This model of interrogation was developed in 1992. It involves building a rapport with the suspect, explaining the accusations and the seriousness of the crime, gathering the truth, emphasizing the importance of honesty, and gathering the suspect’s version. The main aim of this method is to find the facts rather than get a confession.

REID Technique

The Reid technique of Investigations and Interrogation was developed by John Reid* and was first taught to investigators in 1974. This technique consists of three interrelated components-

1. Factual Analysis—In this procedure, the interrogator analyzes the investigative findings to eliminate the innocent and try to find leads or possible suspects. This process helps establish probable guilt or innocence of the suspect based on their bio-social status. This procedure aims to gather facts and identify characteristics of the suspects that will help the interrogator in the next steps.

2. Behavioral Analysis Interview— In this process, the interrogator initially establishes the suspect’s normal behavior. After establishing that, the interrogator asks behavior-provoking questions to see how the suspect reacts. This will establish to the interrogator whether or not the suspect should be taken to the next stage.

3. Interrogation- Once the interrogator is fairly certain of the suspect’s involvement, he/she is interrogated. This procedure consists of 9 steps-

a. Positive Confrontation- In this step, the interrogator confronts the suspect either directly, accusing him/her of the crime, or indirectly, mentioning that the suspect is still hiding something. Towards the end of this first step, the interrogator is expected to transition to a sympathetic and understanding person. Then the interrogator moves to the next step.

b. Theme Development—After the interrogators have established themselves as understanding people, they try to present a moral justification for the suspect’s crime. This justification is called a Theme.

c. Handling Denials- The suspect, whether innocent or not, will deny their involvement in the crime they are accused of. The interrogator must observe closely when and how the suspect denies their involvement.

d. Overcoming Objections- Once the suspect learns that the attempts to deny their involvement are unsuccessful, they will try to come up with objections to claim their innocence. These objections could be either moral, factual, or emotional. In this stage, the interrogator needs to meet these objections with understanding and agreement. The interrogator also points out the negative aspects of the situation in case the objection is false. If the interrogator successfully overcame the objections, the suspect withdrew their attention.

e. Procurement and Retention of Suspect’s Attention— To regain the suspect’s attention, the interrogator must close the distance between them. The interrogator moves closer to the suspect, invading their personal space.

f. Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood- After the suspect’s attention is back on the interrogator again, the interrogator stresses the essential themes and probable alternative components. At this stage, the guilty suspect feels defeated, and telling the truth seems inevitable. At this point, the suspect might start crying or feel depressed. In this stage, the interrogator remains sympathetic and understanding and urges the suspect to tell the truth.

g. Presenting an Alternative Question- An alternative Question here does not mean a question inviting the suspect to deny the crime, for example, did you or did you not do this? The alternative question is the one that is based on the assumption of guilt and makes the confession of the suspect possible in a few words. An example of an alternate question could be, ‘Did you plan this or did it happen at the spur of the moment?’

h. Having the suspect orally relate to various details of the crime- Once the suspect accepts one of the two alternate questions, the interrogator acknowledges and provides a statement of reinforcement to the suspect. Then the interrogator starts to ask questions that would help confirm various details of the crime.

i. Converting an oral confession to a written confession- Once an accurate verbal account of the crime with elaborate details has been received, the interrogator can convert this oral statement or confession into a written confession in any of the four formats-

i. Statement written by the suspect
ii. Statement written by interrogator and read and signed by the suspect
iii. Statement taken by secretary or stenographer and read and signed by the suspect
iv. Video or audio Statement

PEACE Technique

PEACE is less confrontational and more of an information-gathering method that is being used in England and parts of Europe. It consists of five phases-

1.Planning and Preparation- In this first phase of the interrogation method, the interrogator makes sure to gather all the important facts and information about the case. The Interrogator is required to create an investigation plan highlighting all the suspects that need to be interviewed and in which manner, decide on the aims and objectives of the interview, what should be the characteristics of an interviewee, consider practical arrangements such as visiting the scene of the crime and nearby premises, should go through the requirements of the interview, and create a thorough written interview plan.

2. Engage and Explain—In this next stage, the interrogator engages the suspect in conversations to gather more information. The interrogator is also required to explain all the charges against the suspect and inform them why they are brought in for questioning. The interrogator is required to actively listen to the suspect and acknowledge them.

3. Account Clarification and Challenge— In this phase of the interrogation, the interrogator actively listens to the suspect’s account and asks short, simple questions free of jargon. It is important to ask questions in the suspect’s language and not use language with which the suspect is uncomfortable. The questions could be open-ended, closed, multiple, or leading.

4. Closure— The interrogator needs to plan out this phase properly so that the interview does not seem to end abruptly. The interrogator should answer any question the suspect has and explain what will happen next.

5. Evaluation— In this last phase of the interrogation, the interviewer reviews and reflects on the suspect’s answers and performance, determines whether the suspect’s account fits the rest of the investigation, and determines whether any further action is required.

Some people prefer the information-gathering approach, whereas some prefer the accusatory technique. No matter the technique, the aim is to gather more evidence and deliver justice.

False Confessions

During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and the more recent ages, people believed that witches, Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, etc, threatened the social order. In those times, to identify whether a person was a witch, the investigators had two methods: finding an invisible devil’s mark or getting a confession. Since the Devil’s mark was alleged to be invisible and a mark that would not bleed, it led to many women being tied down and pricked continuously till the investigators found such a mark. Many women succumbed to this torture and would falsely confess to being witches. This is an example from the Middle Ages to show how torture and other coercive methods can lead to false confession. Many people believe the Reid Technique to be coercive, thus leading to false confessions. Although the technique might not be the one causing the false confessions, it is more of a fault of the interrogator engaging in improper behavior, and the false confessions result in a miscarriage of justice. The interrogation techniques, being one of the important steps in the investigative process, need to focus on how to bring out the guilty while making sure the innocents are not harmed.

*Fun Fact- Reid also developed a questioning technique in Polygraph called ‘Comparison Question Technique (CQT)’.

References

Authored by

Prashansa Tripathi

Prashansa Tripathi is a Researcher and Forensic Psychologist with a master’s degree in Forensic Psychology and two years of experience. She is dedicated to making forensic psychology accessible to all and is particularly interested in deception and the neuropsychology of truth-telling. Outside of work, she enjoys reading, writing, and exploring nature.