Investigative interviewing now has two distinct approaches: information-gathering and confession-based interview and interrogation styles. The former focuses on extracting accurate, comprehensive information to piece together the truth, while the latter seeks to obtain a confession, operating under the presumption of guilt once the interrogator is convinced of the interviewee's guilt. This article aims to contrast these two techniques and where the future of investigative interviewing is headed.
Information-gathering techniques are rooted in research and encourage open, cooperative dialogue utilizing rapport-building and active listening techniques. The interviewer encourages interviewees to talk freely, providing an environment conducive to voluntary and exhaustive disclosures. Interviewers avoid leading questions and revealing case-specific information, while prioritizing the corroboration of information through evidence and confirmation. When disclosing evidence, information-gathering strategies use a late-disclosure approach which has been shown to gather more comprehensive case information. The objective is to gather a detailed, accurate, and complete account of the event under scrutiny without contaminating the statement.
Science-Based Interviewing (SBI) SBI is a collection of communication techniques and processes that have been validated through research. Like other information-gathering strategies, SBI focuses on gathering more case-relevant information through planning and preparation, rapport building, active listening, asking open-ended questions, and the strategic use of evidence (SUE). It employs a combination of these techniques, along with memory-compatible questioning strategies and components of cognitive interviewing. Importantly, field validation studies on actual cases show that the confession rate for information-gathering approaches, like SBI, is better than confession-driven methods. SBI rejects the pseudoscientific techniques found in many accusatory and confession-driven systems that have been marketed to law enforcement and private investigators for over fifty years.
The PEACE model, used extensively in the United Kingdom, is another interview model that embodies the information-gathering approach. PEACE prioritizes and stands for Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluation - a process that encourages fact-finding over confession extraction. This method has been lauded for its effectiveness in obtaining quality information and safeguarding the rights of interviewees.
Lastly, the Cognitive Interview (CI) is a method used by law enforcement to enhance recall of information from witnesses and victims of crime. Developed by psychologists Fisher and Geiselman in the 1980s, it utilizes a range of cognitive and social techniques to facilitate memory recall. The primary strategies include reinstating the context, reporting everything, changing the order of events, and changing perspectives. These techniques encourage the interviewee to mentally recreate the environmental and emotional context of the event, enabling them to recall more accurate and detailed information. The CI has been proven through numerous studies to increase the amount and quality of information recalled, thus making it a valuable tool in investigative interviewing.
In contrast, confession-based interviewing operates under an assumptive guilt paradigm. Often dubbed as accusatory, this approach is centered on breaking down a suspect's resistance to obtain and admission followed by a confession. These techniques involve psychological manipulation, such as minimizing the severity of the offense, offering moral justifications, the prisoner's dilemma, asking the "alternative" questions, and sometimes resorting to false evidence ploys. Popular accusatory techniques usually involve two stages: an investigative component and an interrogation stage.
The distinctions between the two methods becomes highly relevant when discussing the issue of false confessions. Although a confession often appears as irrefutable evidence of guilt, false confessions are an alarming reality, primarily resulting from coercive, accusatory, confession-based interviewing. The Innocence Project reports that about 25% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved false confessions or admissions. DNA proved the irrefutable confession idea wrong.
Suspects may falsely confess due to several factors. Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, and Redlich (2010) highlight three types of false confessions: voluntary (offered without external pressure), coerced-compliant (obtained through intense interrogation), and coerced-internalized (where the innocent suspect becomes convinced of their guilt). The latter two types are often linked to confession-based interviewing, where psychological manipulation can push individuals, particularly the vulnerable ones (juveniles), into a false confession.
False confessions undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system, leading to wrongful convictions and letting those actually responsible, remain free. The shift towards information-gathering techniques is a way to inoculate against false confessions. Information-gathering techniques prioritize collecting thorough and corroborated information over extracting confessions. False confessions underscore the need for ongoing evaluation and reformation of investigative interviewing techniques.
Confession-based or accusatory interview and interrogation methods in law enforcement can have serious, far-reaching consequences and thus should be avoided. These are invalidated methods that use "lie detection," leading questions, excessive pressure on suspects (potentially innocent), and/or rely on deception. All these techniques increase the risk of obtaining false confessions, contaminate statements, are antithetical to thorough investigations, and can lead to wrongful convictions or other miscarriages of justice.
Additionally, the use of accusatory and other invalidated interviewing methods can erode public trust in law enforcement agencies, which is essential for effective policing. It may expose agencies to legal challenges and damage their reputation long-term. Therefore, law enforcement agencies and private entities, should exclusively use evidence-based, information-gathering validated methods for investigative interviewing. Prioritizing accuracy, fairness, information and respect for individuals' rights should be the aim of all organizations interviewing victims, witnesses, and suspects.
The need for proper training in science-based interviewing methods becomes paramount as bad training has to be fixed with better training. Training on how to use information-gathering techniques effectively and understanding the inherent risks in confession-based approaches is crucial to minimizing the chances of false confessions and unsatisfactory investigations. Measures should also be taken to ensure the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals, such as juveniles or those with cognitive impairments, who are more susceptible to providing false confessions under coercion.
In conclusion, the contrasting nature of information-gathering and confession-based investigative interviewing techniques significantly impacts their outcomes and the quality of justice they uphold. Confession-based or accusatory interview methods risk the elicitation of false confessions, inhibit rapport building, and impair the free flowing of case relevant information. Information-gathering approach, characterized by openness, cooperation, and corroboration, has shown impressive results in obtaining accurate, comprehensive accounts and preserving the rights of interviewees. This approach, as demonstrated in science-based interviewing, the PEACE model, and cognitive interviewing demonstrate a shift towards rapport-based, ethical, and more effective investigative interviewing.
Comments