RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 1

Final Case Study

Samantha Burbank

Florida Tech
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 2

Abstract

This paper discusses the steps I would take if I was the lead negotiator on the case in which two

inmates trapped themselves in a bulletproof tower with two officers held hostage. In addition to

discussing what I would do, I will also be discussing the people that I would have on my team,

ways that I could possibly persuade the inmates to come out, and the communication tactics that

I would use in order to get the hostages and hopefully the two inmates all out safely.
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 3

Final Case Study

A call comes in that there is the need for a negotiation team at the Jones State

Correctional Facility. At the facility there are two inmates who have managed to attack a

correction officer who was patrolling alone in the kitchen. After the two inmates made their

way out of the kitchen, with one inmate wearing the officer’s uniform they approached the

Harvey tower where they knew shift rotation was about to occur. The two officers manning the

tower allowed the inmate wearing the uniform in without showing proper identification which is

against protocol. Soon afterwards, both inmates gained control of the tower and took two guards

as hostage. The tower is bulletproof and it is also locked and barricaded with the two officers

inside having been tied up. I have been called in as the lead negotiator on this specific case.

Negotiation is discourse in which people gather to find a solution to a problem or a specific set of

issues (Matusitz, & Breen, 2006). Both inmates have very dangerous histories so unfortunately,

this may be a bit of a challenging case.

As the lead negotiator on this case, there are a few people that I would want on my team

to ensure that this incident ends in a reasonable amount of time and that everyone – including the

inmates and the two guards that are being held hostage come out of this situation alive. The

police would be on my team because they would be the first people to arrive at the correction

facility when the incident first occurred. They are also the ones who secured the perimeter and

first talked with Marshal and Dave – the two inmates. It is because of this that they are a crucial

part of this as they have valuable, first-hand knowledge of the situation at hand. In addition to the

police, the guards that were around the inmates the most would be on the team as they may know

things about Marshal and Dave that the police don’t know. The guards are also the ones who

have spent the most time with the two others than the other inmates at the prison. If the guards
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 4

know something about either of the two men it could be beneficial in helping to get them out

safely.

Another person that I would have on my team is a psychologist. Studies have shown that

52% of all hostage incidents involve mentally disturbed people (Fuselier, 1988). In fact, the

prison psychologist has worked with both Dave and Marshal and has diagnosed Marshal as

clinically antisocial and Dave has shown signs of psychopathy though he has never been

clinically diagnosed. The psychologist can be beneficial because he/she could help point out

signs that the two men are experiencing something. In addition, he/she could also help to explain

some of the things that a psychopath or someone who is antisocial would do. It would be

beneficial to know things that may or may not trigger the men in the wrong direction during the

negotiation. People who come across as antisocial tend to lie, behave violently or impulsively,

and generally have a disregard for what is right and wrong in addition to many other symptoms

(Burt, Mcgue, Carter, & Iacono, 2007). While on the other hand, Dave has shown signs of

psychopathy which has many similar signs that people who are antisocial show. It is because of

this that the psychologist is an essential part of the negotiation team.

The Warden, D’jigillo Jones should also be present during this matter. He is also another

very important factor to this situation. One reason is because this is the prison that he runs and

these are his inmates and guards who are being held hostage. In addition, Dave and Marshal

asked to speak with him as a part of their demands which does not seem to unreasonable. The

warden may be an essential piece in getting everyone out of this situation alive and get any

problems resolved. All these people are involved to ensure that I have all the information I need

and I am looking at the situation with a clear eye and maybe a small understanding of what these

men are really looking for. By having all of these people behind the scene I hope that with the
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 5

information we can gather about Marshal and Dave that we can come to an agreement that works

for them and gets the guards out of the tower safely.

In regards to the communication tactics that I would use, I would use multiple different

approaches to this situation. Hostage negotiations tend to be characterized by heightened levels

of emotional arousal, uncertainty, and anxiety for everyone who is involved (Giles, 2002) To

start off, I would like to learn more information about the culture of Marshal and Dave. I’d like

to know more about how they treated other inmates, and guards. I’d also like to learn more about

what their culture was like before they ended up in prison. Their culture can be defined as the

characteristic values, norms, and institutions (Giebels, & Taylor, 2009). Where are they from

originally, where they involved in any gangs and so on. It is important to learn about the two

men’s cultures because their culture helps to determine a person’s attitudes, self-construct, and

behavior which in turn relates directly to a person’s strategic choices in conflict situations such

as this one (Giebels, & Taylor, 2009). By learning more information about both Marshal’s and

Dave’s prison life and what life was like on the outside, I am hoping that this will give me a bit

of an upper hand on talking to the men and making meaningful connections that will allow me to

establish a trust with at least one of them. This is also important because of their mental states.

One of both men could have very different interests when it comes to this situation. If they have

different interests they could turn on each other and someone in the tower could end up seriously

injured or even dead. This is why is it imperative that I learn all the information I can before

approaching the men to much and making them even more angry then they already are.

The most important step as a negotiator is establishing trustworthiness which cannot

happen without background knowledge (Knowles, 2016). Since hostage negotiations revolve

around the communication skills and tactics I use, I want to make sure that I have all the
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 6

information that I need in a reasonable amount of time (Knowles, 2016). The negotiation process

that I will be using for this situation is the 7 elements or core concerns. I am using this process

because I feel like it is the best thing to use with two men who may not be in a normal mental

state. The first step of this process is to attend to the relationship this means that there needs to be

a separation between the people and the problem (Hocker, & Wilmot, 2018). This is the step

where information is gathered and rapport is built with Dave and Marshal. This ensures that they

are able to trust me to an extent and that I’m going to do my best to not harm them in any way.

After I have established the important relationship with Dave and Marshal, the next step

is to attend to all elements of communication which is where we work to build positive, two-way

communication and avoid telling others what to do (Hocker, & Wilmot, 2018). Next, after

communication has been built between the two inmates and I, the next step is to focus on the

interests of the two men (Hocker, & Wilmot, 2018). In this case, it is their demands which

include talking to the governor of the state, talking to the prison warden, a helicopter with a

radio, police scanner, guns, and money, a handcuff key, and to talk to their family members, who

live across the country. While some of their demands are a bit out of reach for them some of

their demands are easily made such as talking to the warden and talking to their family members.

When people discuss their actual interests out loud, they are much more likely to come to a

multiple agreement so it’s important to take the steps to begin talking about their demands and

what we can do to grant some of them (Hocker, Wilmot, 2018). It’s obvious from the little bit of

information we have on the hostage takers that they are dangerous and that they are not going

down without a fight. So, with this being said, it is important to tread lightly on what we can and

cannot give the two men.

RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 7

As discussed earlier, these men are dangerous and do not care about what happens to

them so it’s important that the negotiation plan keeps this at the forefront. The next step is to

generate options in case this proposed plan fails for one reason or another (Hocker, & Wilmot,

2018). This is where creativity is needed. There needs to be some kind of back up plan on the off

chance that the situation begins to look like a win-lose, sub-zero game (Hocker, & Wilmot,

2018). It is vital that the relationship and trust that has been established does not come crumbling

down and making things worse for the guards that are being held hostage. After there has been

some other kind of plan established, the legitimate criteria need to be evaluated (Hocker, &

Wilmot, 2018). This is where you look back for a moment and make sure that the possible

outcomes are fair, reasonable, and respects the interest of each party involved (Hocker, &

Wilmot, 2018). In this case, we would want to make sure that the interest of my team which

would be getting the guards out safe was made clear and that the two men get at least two of their

five demands met. After this is said and done, it’s time to take a look at what your walk-away

alternative is in addition to what theirs is (Hocker, Wilmot, 2018). Then, last but not least, you

need to make sure to work with fair and realistic commitments (Hocker, & Wilmot, 2018). I

obviously can’t promise the men that they can talk with the governor of the state but I can allow

them to talk with their family.

An alternative negotiation agreement is also important to have in situations such as this

one. Negotiators with a BATNA often obtain high individual outcomes and a larger percentage

of outcomes than those who do not have a BATNA (Brett, Pinkley, Jackofsky, 1996). In this

particular case I think that it is important to use active listening skills when listening to what the

men want. Considering the fact that they want to talk to both the governor of the state and the

warden of the prison I have concluded that something may be going on in the prison and that is
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 8

why they are doing this. While of course these men have not gone about things the right way,

it’s also very possible that nobody would listen to them and that this was the only way that they

could get anyone to listen to them. Once again, I think it’s important to note that anything we do

has to be done with the hostages in mind.

In addition, because the two inmates have threatened to harm the guards it is also

important that whatever is done is done in a timeframe in which the guards will not be hurt in

any way, shape, or form. By using active listening skills and trying to figure out why the two

inmates are doing this rather than spending time on their demands. While just talking may not

work well with two inmates who both have mental issues, maybe listening to what they are

trying to say and the point that they are trying to prove may be something that could help in the

long-run. In the long-run open communication is going to be the best bet in this situation.

Communication opportunities can lead to increased openness to unique information (Swaab,

Phillips, Diermeier, & Medver, 2008). If the men are unable to listen to this reason, there are

certain goals and persuasion tactics that can be used to hopefully get everyone on the same page

and to get everyone out safely.

In conclusion, the main point of this is to hopefully resolve any issues that the two

inmates have and to also get everyone out of the tower alive. I would like to hope that the tactics

that I have laid out in this paper would be enough to lure the men out of the tower to talk further

about what brought them to this situation to begin with. Unfortunately, one of the two men has

nothing to lose as he has a life sentence and the sentence of the other inmate is unknown. I am

hoping that by using their families and being able to talk to them that maybe they will listen to

the more responsible voice in their head. Thankfully, with the help of the psychologist, and the

other people on my team I will be able to gain more knowledge about the men and the
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 9

psychologist will be able to analyze when their mental state is in a bad place and when certain

strategies will and will not work on the two inmates. The whole goal behind this negotiation is

to get everyone out safely and figure out what brought the two inmates to do this in the first

place. In addition, I would also recommend that they try and receive some kind of mental help in

the prison.
RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 1

References

Brett, J. F., Pinkley, R. L., & Jackofsky, E. F. (1996). alternatives to having a batna in

dyadic negotiation: The influence of goals, self-efficacy, and alternatives on

negotiated outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(2), 121-138.

Burt, S. A., McGue, M., Carter, L. A., & Iacono, W. G. (2007). The different origins of

stability and change in antisocial personality disorder symptoms. Psychological

Medicine, 37(1),

27-38.

Fuselier, G. D. (1988). Hostage negotiation consultant: Emerging role for the clinical

psychologist. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(2), 175-179.

Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations:

Persuasive arguments and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94(1), 5-19.

Giles, H., & EBSCO Publishing (Firm). (2002). Law enforcement, communication, and

community. Amsterdam;Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2018). Interpersonal conflict (10th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Knowles, G. J. (2016). Social psychological dynamics of hostage negotiation: Forensic

psychology, suicide intervention, police intelligence/counterintelligence, and

tactical entry. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 6(1), 16.

Matusitz, J., & Breen, G. M. (2006). Negotiation tactics in organizations applied to hostage

negotiation. Journal of Security Education, 2(1), 55-73.

RUNNING HEAD: FINAL CASE 1

Swaab, R. I., Phillips, K. W., Diermeier, D., & Medvec, V. H. (2008). The pros and cons of

dyadic side conversations in small groups: The impact of group norms and task type.

Small Group Research, 39(3), 372.