Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Interrogation Tactics and Techniques 19
Step 7: ‘Presenting an Alternative Question’
Here the suspect is presented with two possible alternatives for the commission
of the crime. Both alternatives are highly incriminating, but they are worded
in such a way that one alternative acts as a face-saving device whilst the other
implies some repulsive or callous motivation. It represents the culmination of
theme development and in addition to a face-saving function, it provides an incentive
to confess (i.e. if the suspect does not accept the lesser alternative others
may believe the worst case scenario). This is undoubtedly the most important
part of the Reid Model and one commonly seen in cases where suspects’ resistance
has been broken down during interrogation. It is a highly coercive
procedure where suspects are pressured to choose between two incriminating
alternatives when neither may be applicable. This is a very dangerous technique
to apply, particularly among suspects who are of below average intelligence,
which applies to a large proportion of suspects detained at police stations
for questioning (see Chapter 3).
The psychological reasoning behind the alternative question is:
A person is more likely to make a decision once he had committed himself, in a
small way, toward that decision. This is precisely what the alternative question
accomplishes during an interrogation. It offers the guilty suspect the opportunity
to start telling the truth by making a single admission (Inbau et al., 2001, p. 353).
In other words, the suspect is given the opportunity to provide an explanation or
an excuse for the crime, which makes self-incriminating admission much easier
to achieve. The timing of presentation of the alternative question is critical. If
presented at the right time it will catch the suspect by surprise and make him
more likely to confess.
Inbau et al. point out that occasionally suspects will persist with their facesaving
excuses, but the interrogator will usually have no problem in obtaining
a more incriminating explanation for the crime by pointing out flaws in the
excuses given.
The potential impact of the presentation of the alternative question is illustrated
by the following comment:
It is important to note that even the most experienced and skilled investigators
achieve a confession rate of about 80%. Of the approximately 20 percent of suspects
who do not confess after being offered an alternative question, it might be argued
that a small percentage of them could have been innocent (Inbau et al., 2001,
p. 364).
It is evident from the above quote that the authors have great faith in the ability
of interrogators to detect deception by the use of non-verbal signs:
. . . the vast majority of suspects who have exhibited the previously described behaviours
indicative of deception throughout the course of the interrogation are, in
fact, guilty of the offense (p. 364).
The above comment makes no reference to the possibility of a false confession.
Indeed, the authors are very confident in their technique: