Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Interrogation Tactics and Techniques 13
The selection of the interrogation strategy in a given case depends largely
on the personality of the suspect, the type of offence he or she is accused of, the
probable motive for the crime and the suspect’s initial reaction to questioning.
Suspects are classified into two broad groups: emotional versus non-emotional
offenders. Emotional offenders are considered likely to experience feelings of
distress and remorse in relation to the commission of the offence. For emotional
offenders a sympathetic approach, appealing to their conscience, is the strategy
of choice. Non-emotional offenders are those not likely to experience feelings
of remorse for the offence and they do not become emotionally involved in the
interrogation process. Here the interrogator uses a factual analysis approach,
appealing to the suspect’s common sense and reasoning. The two approaches
are not mutually exclusive and both may be used with suspects with somewhat
different emphasis.
Step 1: ‘Direct Positive Confrontation’
This consists of the suspect being told with ‘absolute certainty’ that he or she
committed the alleged offence. The interrogator states confidently that the results
of extensive enquiries by the police indicate that the suspect committed the
offence. Even if the interrogator has no tangible evidence against the suspect
he or she should not give any indication of this to the suspect and if necessary
must pretend that there is evidence. After the initial confrontation there
is a brief pause, during which the suspect’s behavioural reactions are closely
observed. The suspect is then confronted with the accusations again. Passive
reaction to the accusation is considered to be evidence of deception. The interrogator
then proceeds to convince the suspect of the benefit of telling the truth
(i.e. the truth as seen by the interrogator), without an obvious promise of leniency,
which would invalidate any subsequent confession. This may focus on
pointing out the suspect’s ‘redeeming qualities’ to get him to explain his side
of the story, explaining that it is all a matter of understanding his character
and the circumstances that led to the commission of the offence and pointing
out the need to establish the extent of his criminal activity (i.e. the extent of
his criminal activity is exaggerated to elicit a reaction from the suspect). The
interrogator then proceeds to Step 2.
Step 2: ‘Theme Development’
Here it is important that the interrogator displays an understanding and sympathetic
attitude in order to gain the suspect’s trust. The interrogator suggests
various ‘themes’ to the suspect, which are aimed to either minimize the moral
implications of the alleged crime or give the suspect the opportunity of accepting
‘moral excuses’ for the commission of the crime (i.e. they are face-saving
excuses). In this way the suspect can accept physical responsibility for the
crime while at the same time minimizing either the seriousness of it or the
internal blame for it. Inbau et al. point out that this kind of theme development
is most effective with emotional offenders, because they experience
feelings of shame and guilt. Giving them the opportunity of relieving their
guilt by accepting moral excuses for what they have done acts as a powerful