Recently in Interrogations Category

http://listverse.com/2007/08/23/top-11-methods-of-interrogation/

These methods of interrogation are taught by SERE- U.S. military program.
 1. Isolation
 2. Sleep Deprivation
 3. Sensory Deprivation
 4. Stress Positions
 5. Sensory Bombardment
 6. Forced Nudity
 7. Sexual Humiliation
 8. Cultural Humiliation
 9. Extreme Cold
10. Phobias
11. Water Boarding

This website goes into great detail about each of the 11 methods of interrogation.  What interrogation method do you think is the worst and why?

New York Times published this article talking about how innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit.  Anytime you are questioned, or think you are helping someone by giving information for a crime HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT!!! 

As stated in this article, "Proving innocence after a confession, however, is rare. Eight of the defendants in Professor Garrett's study had actually been cleared by DNA evidence before trial, but the courts convicted them anyway."

Look around this page and be sure to take the time to look at this article by Professor Garrett.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?_r=1&no_interstitial

Would you confess to a crime you did not commit?  You may say you would never falsely confess to a crime under any circumstance (especially those with great penalties), but the truth is, false confessions happen more often than you realize. 

For instance, take the case of Eddie Lowery.  Although Eddie Lowery deep now knew he was innocent of rape, he inevitably confessed and consequently spent 10 years of his life in prison until DNA evidence and the help of the Innocence Project exonerated him.

False confessions can occur for numerous reasons and some people may be more susceptible to falsely confess.  For example, the mentally ill and children are highly influenced by police during interrogation and subsequently confess more often than individuals who are not mentally ill or are adults.  Other circumstances, such as being deprived of food, water, and the restroom, being interrogated for hours on end (which happened in Lowery's case - he was interrogated for more than 7  hours), and in some instances being beaten,  also lead to more false confessions.   

Interrogations can also plant false memories in the suspect's head to the extent to which they become real (much like the lost in the  mall study described in class).  According to Professor Garrett who studies cases such as Lowery's, facts about the case can be intentionally or accidentally brought up in interrogation which plants a seed in the suspect's memory.  With constant contamination to the suspect's memory, these "seeds" can grow into evidence that one would think only the person responsible for the crime would know. 

Much like you and me, Garrett was shocked by the amount of contamination that had occurred in the cases he studied.  Interestingly, more than half of the cases he studied, the suspect was "mentally ill, under the age of 18, or both."  Along with that, most of the interrogations were lengthy and held in a pressuring environment.  Even more interesting, none of the cases Garrett studied had a lawyer present during interrogation. 

Although in some cases evidence that is leaked during interrogations in accidentally, Eddie Lowery felt that the police intentionally contaminated his memories.  According to Lowery, after he confessed, the police insisted he recall the process of the crime and corrected him when he got key facts incorrect.  For example, Lowery recalled this from his interrogation: "How did he get in (police asking Lowery how the rapist got into the house)" "I kicked in the front door" - Lowery, "But the rapist had used the back door" - Police.  Consequently, Lowery changed his story and admitted to going through the back door.

Why are false confessions so important? -- because juries are highly influenced by them when deciding on a verdict.  Despite being cleared by DNA evidence prior to going on trial, 8 of the individuals in Garrett's study were still found guilty and sent to jail.  Because juries are mostly interested in the details of the case and because false memories have been implanted in the suspect's brain, jury members tend to ignore other facts in the case and focus on the highly detailed confession.

If false confession are so common, what can be done to prevent them?  Some police departments have started videotaping interrogations, especially ones that could result in severe punishments (death penalty).  Ten states require videotaping and many supreme courts are encouraging tapings of interrogations. 

Keeping the case of Eddie Lowery and many others in mind, how do you feel about videotaping interrogations?  Do you feel it is necessary for all interrogations (even those where the consequence if found convicted is not severe) or just crimes that could possibly cause someone to serve the rest of their life in prison or even be put to death?  Are there better ways to reduce the occurrence of false confessions?  What do you feel can and/or needs to be done to free the dozens of innocent people currently serving time behind bars?

 

Here is a link to the article and more about Eddie's case.

(Thank you Alyssa for sharing!)

In my Psychology of Gender Differences class I have learned many of the differences between men and women. One big difference in their behavior is in the way men and women communicate. Women, for instance, engage in more positive social behavior (agreement) and men engage in more task orientated behavior and negative behavior (disagreeing). Men's language also tends to be more direct, succinct, and instrumental. Women's language on the other hand is more indirect, elaborative, and affective. I was interested to see how the way men and women's ways of communicating would affect certain occupations in our law system. I found an extremely interesting article on men and women's communication styles amongst lawyers. Here is what I found:

Although the gender inequality in professions in the law system seems to be becoming less prevalent, women still might struggle to be as effective communicators and negotiators as men. This article explains that women need to understand one thing, that men and women are different and have different ways of communicating, and therefore negotiating. Like a sports team, you must use your own team's strengths to win. Women and men must recognize their strengths and weaknesses and then build ways to negotiate properly with people.

 "Studies have shown that when men are negotiating against women, they tend to play hardball or tend to be more aggressive and concede less than they would if they were negotiating against a man.  I think it is important to keep that in mind so that you understand before you go into a negotiation what the ground rules are."

Women also tend to have a want to be liked by the person she is negotiating with. This could possibly limit them to less aggressive styles of negotiating. She may be afraid as being seen as too aggressive if she were more direct. Women must instead use their strengths instead. Women ask more questions, and work to get to know the person better. This in turn could help this person self-disclose more and then the negotiator could learn to deal with their personality better.

Do you think women can use these strengths to be great negotiators? Or do you think men will always be more aggressive in nature, and therefore better at negotiating with people?

 

http://litigationconferences.com/?p=4260

I found this website that talks about traps that your mind does to you that usually make you think incorrectly. I thought the first one was most relevant to this class. It's called the anchoring trap and it's when you base your thoughts/decisions off of the first thing you hear. The example they used is a study that asked people two questions: Is the population of Turkey was over 35 million? What's your best estimate? The results showed that almost everyone guessed around 35 million. They asked the same question to other people using 100 million instead. The results were the same. This reminds me of questioning witnesses and how using leading questions can result in false answers. If a witness isn't totally sure about what happened and they're asked if the suspect was fat, they're probably going to think the suspect was fat. The website gave 9 more mind traps that are very interesting as well and it shows how powerful our brain is and how we don't always realize that. Here's the website: http://litemind.com/thinking-traps/

Why on earth would somebody falsely confess to a crime they didn't commit, especially since they are aware of its consequences?  This website highlights some of the reasons why an individual may falsely confess.

This article points out some of the characteristics which make individuals vulnerable to interrogation and more likely to falsely confess.  Individuals with low IQs, suggestible personalities, anxiety problems, drug addictions, and children are more likely to confess for numerous reasons. 

Why are individuals who fit these categories more likely to confess?  It is suggested that when police bring about false evidence, vulnerable individuals may doubt their memories, fill in the gaps with the false evidence, and internalize the idea that they did indeed commit the crime.

Why would police departments purposefully introduce false evidence, offer compensation for telling the "truth," etc. when they know what they are doing isn't right?  Maybe some departments feel pressure to solve a case to put the public at ease and regain/maintain trust; however, I feel that it is very possible that the opposite can happen.  For example, after the department successfully gets somebody to falsely confess, they close the case leaving the actual perpetrator on the loose in society.  Let's say for instance that the real perpetrator commits another crime after the previous case has been closed, he is eventually convicted, and later admits to the crime that somebody was coerced into falsely confessing.  If I lived in that community, I would definitely lose respect for the department, especially if I found out that the police played a part in the confession.

Personally, I think that police shouldn't be given all the freedoms that we talked about in class (e.g. providing false information, interrogating for long hours, offering compensation) because I don't think it benefits anyone.  Hopefully someday psychology can do something to help put an end to police coercion!

 

   

Talking Tuesday in class I realized how uneducated I am when it comes to police officers. I didn't know that they could lie to no end just to get a confession or anything else we really learned Tuesday. I decided to do some research on the topic. The site I found-- i'm not sure how credible-- reinstated a lot of the things we were told in class. For the record, I LOVE police officers! In the end they do accomplish a LOT of good through their jobs. They protect those who need protecting and uphold a lot of good in the world. So keep in mind while reading this= they are doing their jobs as they were taught to do. They don't know who is truly guilty or innocent and part of their job is to decipher the differance, through whatever means.

I do NOT agree however with the sites "golden rule:" Don't trust cops. Cops are there for the better of society as a whole and we should keep that in mind. At the end of the day, cops are the good guys. Good guys that just want answers. So while this site is informative I'm choosing not to believe everything in it because it seems very opinion based to me.

I was not aware that cops do not have to read you your Miranda Rights- I was under the impression that your rights were there for you regardless, yet they can still use whatever you say against you in court. From class I know that during interrogation they can lie to get any confession possible. I had never really thought about the lie they tell when they're going to charge someone for... who knows what. They can't charge us with anything! So why have we not learned this earlier? We wait until we're 20 years old to find this stuff out. What about those who still have no idea!?

But how fair is it for a police officer to trick an innocent citizen? A citizen who believes that he or she is in good hands. A citizen who believes they are being protected, not tricked. So it should be common sense to any judge or jury that any confession given should be looked at critically because people will say anything to "help" those who are supposed to "help" us.

http://www.rense.com/general72/howto.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-interrogation-on-film,0,1131791.story

I think that this is a great idea for the exact reasons that the ABA states: it will reduce the allegations by suspects that the detectives coerced them into a confession and it will help detect false confessions when they occur. I don't agree with the DEA that the videotapes will teach the criminals the detectives' techniques because from what I understand, these tapes won't be open to the public, and certainly not to  criminals.

The part that I like best is that it will prevent suspects and their attorneys to portray the police as abusive. I have full confidence that the "roughing up" that you sometimes see in TV shows rarely if ever occurs.

To touch on the innocence project, this could be another method to prove someone's innocence - by reviewing the interrogation tapes to see if they were in any way coerced to confess or if they seem mentally ill.

Veritaserum... Fact or Fiction?

After reading other people's posts this afternoon about lie detection, I started looking for real life chemicals that might make someone spill their secrets. Most of what I found led me to believe that truth serums are better left for pages in a science-fiction novel but I did find one article interesting, on Wikipedia of all places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum

Granted, Wikipedia's reliability isn't the greatest but generally speaking they are good for some stuff so I am going to take their word for it for arguments sake. According to this article, there are certain chemicals that can induce people to tell the truth. These chemicals have been deemed unethical under the grounds of torture in international law however they can be used for psychiatry purposes. The reliability of these drugs are called to question in this article as it states that the drugs do not actually cause people to tell the truth, it is the fact that the people the drugs are being administered to BELIEVE that they cannot tell a lie under the influence of the drug. It also states that the drugs causes people to talk more frequently thereby releasing more information and maybe telling more truths.

I found this information very interesting especially the part about it being illegal in international law. Now I am just as much for civil liberties as the next person but I do not feel that this should fall under the guidelines as torture from an international legal standard. I suppose one could argue that in a very contrived scenario where someone is administering truth serum on a governmental figure to obtain information (let's say codes to our nuclear weapons arsenal) then YES maybe then you can view truth serum as torture (although if someone wants access to our nukes then they probably don't care about international law anyway). What do you think? Is a truth serum unethical? If so why or why not?

 

(For those that didn't get the title reference, Veritaserum is a fictional truth serum)

 

The ever so popular TV show, The First 48 on AE.TV is one that you can count on for truth and facts. The first 48 is a show about homicide detectives that respond to a crime and try and solve it within the first 48 hours. These are real cases with the real people...no actors or replaying of a scene. What you see is what you get!
This show focuses mostly on people that go from suspicion to suspect, eye witnesses, and the interrogation, or interviewing. This really helps you see what a detective does from the moment they get that call.
You can also get a sense of how they figure out what happened and who was involved. They start with the facts that they have off hand and work their way down from there. The one thing that I have started to notice sense we have talked about it in class is the interrogations done by the detectives. In class we learned that a detective will tell you anything you want to hear. They will exhaust you mentally and physically, they will lie to you. Basically they will do anything to get you to confess or turn on anyone. If you notices, in most shows, the detective will either try and play friend, or yell and scream and lie to get them to crack. I find it interesting to watch, now that you really know what is going on.
I have posted the link to the First 48 TV shows. The one on the link I am posting is about a homeless man who is murdered, and a 911 call that has gun shots firing in the background. I urge you to watch the whole show and really pay close attention to the detail that goes into being a detective, especially the ones that do the interviews.
If you are interested after watching this show, you can watch many other episodes with different stories. They get very interesting!

http://www.aetv.com/the_first_48/video/index.jsp?paidlink=1&vid=AETV_SEM_Search&keywords=first%2B48&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=first%2540&utm_term=first%2048

http://www.aetv.com/the_first_48/video/index.jsp?paidlink=1&vid=AETV_SEM_Search&keywords=first%2B48&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=first%2540&utm_term=first%2048 

In my effort to find an article about the psychology of interrogation I stumbled upon this article from 2006. A group of psychologists and former interrogators came to the conclusion that torture is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. The group stated that in an effort to stop the pain of torture an innocent would make something up and someone trained to resist torture would twist the facts leaving you with false information to act on. Further they pointed out that the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario in which a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb is tortured to get that information in time. The group points out that the terrorist only has to resist until the bomb goes off and further they state "Moreover, the torture would offer the terrorist a prime opportunity to deceive interrogators by falsely naming bomb locations of difficult access." The entire article can be found here. http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647

Law enforcement agencies are using a new technology that detects lies through voice stress.  However, it is banned in several states because there is no scientific evidence to validate it.  Those who advocate it though say that when people are threatened with it many often confess to avoid lying even more.  A big issue with these analyzer is that they are super expensive.  They run about $11,000 for the analyzer and 6 day training course. Many people compare this to the polygraph machine, but as some people point out it's not as reliable as the polygraph, it just helps sway the investigator in which direction to go.

I personally don't really see the point in this.  If your polygraph tests are coming up inconclusive the person is obviously a good liar.  I can see where threatening them with some "new" technology could make a bit of a difference, I don't see it being much more than a scare tactic to make them confess.  I did find the article very interesting though that they are trying to come up with better ways to catch criminals.

http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/48102-Police-Using-Voice-Stress-Analysis-to-Detect-Lies/

I found an interesting webpage on how to catch a liar by watching there eye movements. I thought this would be interesting to learn about. The website explains what direction if the eyes move a certain way (up and to the left would be making up facts) and what they might be thinking at the time. They said that it isn't a science but it is a good indicator of honesty. I know that this could be useful when questioning a witness or suspect to tell if they are actually lying about what happened. I am interested in body language and other forms of indicating what someone is feeling. Here is the website that I found and maybe you can learn by watching someone's eye movement if they are lying!

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2FVXYo/www.mondovista.com/liar.html

 

Not only can a person watch someone's eyes there is research on body language and how they are feeling during a conversation, or according to their body language, are they telling the truth, not just in their eyes. Most people do have to get a baseline when trying to figure out how someone is feeling, but our bodies will do certain things depending on how we are thinking and feeling at the time. This is a good way for an investigator to possible get a feel for the person they are questioning or interrogating. Here is an article by a well known body language expert Tonya Reiman.

http://www.tonyareiman.com/articles/body_language

 

Wow is all I can say for this deposition. The depositions that I have been in were nothing like that. Usually it never gets that out of hand and usually the DA or someone else would stop you if it started getting out of hand. These men even restorted to calling each other fat boy and hairpiece man and even threatned to fight it out .How much is to much with court precedings?  Warning there is some profanity and a lot of hostility displayed, but it is entertaining because one guy sounds like jeff Foxworthy. I wonder how much people get paid to put up with that on a day to day basis, I know I wouldnt be able to deal with the out of control behavior. Here is a link to the video http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6rdaLs/www.youtube.com/watch%253Fv%253DZIxmrvbMeKc 

http://blog.cleveland.com/medical/2008/09/can_mri_scanner_be_a_liedetect.html

An article from the Northeast Ohio Medical Industry, Hospital and Health Care News says that fMRI's could replace old fashioned lie detectors in the future. These scans are more accurate than current lie detectors because they can look directly into the mind. Of course, there are many critics and doubters, but that's to be expected with all new technological advances. The critics argue that this form of detection is still poorly tested and misunderstood. Another argument is that even if the fMRI scanner works, is it legal? Some critics argue that the fMRI scanners will infringe on the right to not self-incriminate. Since the scanner can see what the brain does when a person lies, the person would incriminate themself without even trying. Exactly how does the scanner work?

"..The device's sensors project onto a computer screen an image that looks sort of like a brain crossed with a Doppler radar weather map. When a subject speaks, certain parts of the brain go to work, so blood-oxygen use spikes there. The sensors pick that up, and on screen, those brain parts "light up" in computer-coded color splotches, like the proverbial widely scattered thundershowers on the radar screen behind the nightly newscast's meteorologist..."

Some people say that this test could be used for other things like: employers interviewing potential employees, parents questioning children, etc.

But even supporters of the fMRI scanners for lie detection say they wouldn't use it as the only piece of evidence in a trial.

http://www.rso.cornell.edu/progressive/articles.php?id=113

After the events of 9/11 terrorism has become a hot subject in the media, and can almost be heard daily in conversation. Coming with the emergence of the threat of global terrorism, many issues surrounding it are also brought up. Interrogation/Torture is one of these things.

This article talks about Obama's new HIG, High-value detainee interrogation group, designed to gather intelligence in an efficient manner without compromising ethical values.

The biggest concern comes back to waterboarding,  Which is s a method of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head downwards on an incline , and then pouring water over the face and into all of the victim's breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying. It is considered a form of torture by many legal experts. While the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, physical injuries , lasting psychological damage that could last for years.These psychological effects can include depression, panic attacks, PTSD and an intense aversion to water, even as simple as rain or the shower.

This is a very complex and controversial issue. Many people have strong feelings on both sides of the debate. Should these prisoners have rights? Why give rights to those who would take the lives of as many Americans as they possibly could?
 
The procedures in HIG would also call for an external third party to be present to monitor the interrogator's actions. This all seems promising in theory but is it even possible for HIG to operate effectively under these strict guidelines? The article also mentions that even after these procedures are in place, there is exceptions when torture is allowed to be used.
Is this HIG simply a political move to make it seem as though torture is not being used to please the left's constituents'?

While being a last resort, many high-value detainee's have provided vital information to CIA after waterboarding that has saved many American lives and revealed the location of fugitives that have been on the run for years.  

http://truthinjustice.org/Omaha-CSI.htm

This case has a little something for everyone.  The commander of the Douglas County (Southeast Nebraska) CSI unit has been charged with planting false DNA evidence in a vehicle the police thought belonged to the perpetrator of a double murder.  He is also charged with falsifying documents in a federal investigation, and mail fraud for sending some of these false documents.

Two primary suspects (a father and son) were held for several months before eventually being cleared.  These suspects have since filed charges due to having been harassed into providing a false confession.  The father, who is mildly retarded, was interviewed for 11 hours before confessing to the crime and implicating his son.

Numerous other cases have now been called into question following this investigation including several murder cases in which the defendant is now serving a life-sentence. 

This highlights the need for strict internal control of forensic evidence.  If the system places to much emphasis on achieving convictions, and 'putting bad guys away' field-workers, and law enforcement personnel may be motivated to falsify documents in order to get ahead or keep their jobs. 

'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' starring Jessie Metcalfe, Amber Tamblyn, and Michael Douglas is a recent movie dealing with this issue.  Metcalfe plays a news reporter who is convinced that Douglas, a powerful D.A. interested in running for mayor, has been searching for cases with only circumstantial evidence available then planting evidence to win convictions.  Metcalfe frames himself for a murder in order to expose Douglas.  Watch the trailer here.  Great movie, horrible ending. 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/73536/movie-trailers-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt

In a program series called Discovering Psychology, Philip Zimbardo narrates a particular program called Applying Psychology in Life.
 In the program, Research Psychologist Stephen Ceci is interviewed about child witness testimony. He discusses how investigators can inadvertently alter a child's memory by asking leading questions. His research has also laid down groundwork for interviewing children in many jurisdictions.
 This segment was extremely interesting to me and I encourage you all to watch it. It's roughly 7 minutes long but it is filled with a lot of  useful and interesting information.

http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=1521
*Please note, this video link is for the entire show. You may need to download Media Player 11 to watch it. To get to Ceci's segment, pull the video's progress bar to 12 minutes and 40 seconds into the video. Also, directly following the segment is a different segment about conflict management that begins with images from the Columbine incident (this begins around 19 minutes and 20 seconds). Please note that this segment is entirely different and strictly pertaining to conflict management among youth and not the judicial system. 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=394

A couple in Texas find a seemingly abandoned car and think they've stumbled across a crime scene. And they're right...but not in the way they imagined. Michael May tells the story. Michael is the Books and Culture editor at The Texas Observer. (18 minutes)

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=920

After a decade in which DNA evidence has freed over 100 people nationwide, it's become clear that DNA evidence isn't just proving wrongdoing by criminals, it's proving wrongdoing by police and prosecutors. In this show, we look at what DNA has revealed to us: how police get innocent people to confess to crimes they didn't commit and how they get witnesses to pin crimes on innocent people. There have always been suspicions that these kinds of things take place. With DNA, there's finally irrefutable proof.

http://iilab.utep.edu/

Research at the investigative interviewing laboratory is conducted by Dr. Christian Meissner and his colleagues at the University of Texas at El Paso. Our research examines the social and cognitive psychological processes that underlie the interviewing of individuals in forensic settings.

http://web.mac.com/jwturtle/iWeb/Site/P.I.T..html

The Police Investigation Techniques (P.I.T.) lab addresses issues at the intersection of psychology research and criminal investigations.  Our current interests involve eyewitness identification, investigative interviewing, and detection of deception.