Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

36 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
experienced major problems with intrusive thoughts and other symptoms
of PTSD concerning the police interrogation, which lasted for several years
before they sought treatment.
5. Undermining public confidence. Leo (1992) suggests that coercive and manipulative
police interrogation techniques may undermine the public confidence
in the police and encourage police corruption. Indeed, there is evidence
that in England a series of miscarriage of justice cases involving
coerced confessions have undermined the public faith in the police and the
judiciary as a whole (Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Report, 1993;
Williamson, 1994). Such a situation may make jurors highly sceptical of police
and confession evidence and increase the acquittal rate (Robbins, 2001,
2002).
6. The ‘boomerang effect’. Coercing suspects to confess may sometimes result
in the opposite effects intended by the police. Thus, suspects who would
have confessed in their own time refuse to confess when they feel they are
being rushed or unfairly treated by the police. In other instances, suspects
who have already confessed may retract their confession when they feel
they are pressured too much to provide further information.
These phenomena can be explained in terms of ‘reactance theory’ (Brehm,
1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). That is, when people perceive that their freedom
to choose or act is threatened they may respond by becoming increasingly assertive.
In exceptional cases this may result in the so-called ‘boomerang’ effect.
This means that people may not only become less suggestible and compliant
when pressurized, but they take the opposite view to that communicated by the
interrogator (i.e. they react in an extremely resistant way). Gudjonsson (1995b)
discusses how this can happen in real life police interrogations when suspects
feel they have been pressured too much. The consequences may be devastating
for the police when the case goes to court and judges rule the confession
statement as being inadmissible.
CONCLUSIONS
The techniques recommended in police interrogation manuals, such as that of
Inbau et al. (2001), are based on ‘psychological principles’ that undoubtedly
can be immensely effective in influencing the beliefs and decision-making of
suspects during interrogation. What we do not know is the rate of ‘true’ and
‘false’ confessions elicited, respectively, and how these rates compare with less
coercive techniques. The basic ingredient of the techniques involves the interrogator
being able to ‘read’ the signs of suspects’ lying and ‘guilt’, which forms
the justification for manipulating them into confessing by playing on their vulnerabilities
and using trickery and deceit. The main persuasive ingredients
involve exaggeration or misrepresentation of the evidence against the suspect
(‘maximization’) and theme development (‘minimization’). The interrogator
suggests various ‘themes’ to the suspect which are aimed at minimizing either
the seriousness of the crime (e.g. pretending it was an accident, committed