Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M4a1 Gans Interrogation
M4a1 Gans Interrogation
Confessions play a vital role in law enforcement and crime control areas; however, they also provide a general source of controversy among many professionals. Questions regarding confessions and the methods used for obtaining them often arise in a legal and ethical context. For example, are the suspects statements authentic or is there reason to distrust the testimony? Was the defendants statement voluntary, or was he coerced during an interrogation? Further, was the suspect of sound mind or overly anxious, fatigued, and in any heightened state of suggestibility? All of these questions are illustrative of the complexity of the various issues surrounding confession evidence and the kinds of decisions judges and juries must ultimately determine in court (Kassin, 1997). After all, the main goal in obtaining a valid and reliable confession is to prosecute the suspect for their crimes, so everything must be admissible in a courtroom. To guard the integrity of the criminal justice system, to protect citizens against violations of due process, and to minimize the risk that innocent people will confess to crimes they didnt commit, the federal and state courts have established guidelines for the admission of confession evidence. Although there is no litmus test (any test that uses a single indicator to prompt a decision) (Culombe V. Connecticut, 1961, p. 601), a confession is typically excluded if it was obtained by physical force; prolonged isolation; deprivation of food or sleep, threats of harm or punishment; promise of immunity or leniency; or, with the exclusion of exceptional circumstances, without notifying the suspect of their constitutional rights. For law enforcement officials, the purpose of the interrogation is basically to obtain a full or partial confession by directly eliciting it, or through obtaining information relevant in some way to the authorities and case. Studies have indicated that the use of physical force in interrogations has given way to more psychologically oriented techniques such as feigned sympathy and friendship, the use of informants, the presentation of false and deceptive evidence, and other forms of trickery and deception (Leo & Liu, 2009). Much of the systematic observations done on these theories has suggested that tactics used by the police during interrogations are generally admissible in court. Often these tactics involve using both negative incentives like confronting the suspect with true or false incriminating evidence, refusing to accept denials, and noting contradictions in the suspects story, and positive incentives like appealing to the suspects self-interest or minimization strategies, offering of sympathy, understanding, and an alternative theme that minimizes the moral seriousness of the act (Wicklander & Zulawski, 2002).
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
References Blair, J. (2005). What Do We Know About Interrogation in the United States? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 20 (2); p. 44-47. Boetig & Parsi. (2005). Reducing a guilty suspects resistance to confessing: applying criminological theory to interrogation theme development. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 13(8). Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (1961). Hoffman, C. (2005). Investigative interviewing: Strategies and techniques. Retrieved from http://ifpo.org/articlebank/interviewing.pdf Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Kassin, S. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52 (3); 221-233. Kassin, S. (2005). On The Psychology of Confessions: Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk? American Psychologist, 60(3); p 215, 228. Kassin, S., Appleby, S., & Perillo, J. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15; 39-55.
[Type text]