Compare and contrast the fundamental concepts of communication in an investigatory interview and an interrogation.
A police investigation usually constitutes of two major techniques: an interview or an interrogation. There are times when the police will want to interview people about what they could have witnessed at a crime scene. An interview is just a conversation between an officer and someone else, who could be a witness or a victim, with the goal of learning more about the crime. The purpose of an interview is for the police to determine if the suspect is evading some truth. Through an interview, it is possible for the police to determine who the suspect is and who could be a good witness. An interview is a question and answers session that is non-accusatory. It is mainly a technique that the police uses to determine the credibility of the suspect. Although some questions might be investigative, there is no accusation whatsoever in an interview.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In contrast to an interview, an interrogation is an accusatory form of interrogation. In this case, the police officer somehow suspects that the person they are speaking with is directly or indirectly involved in the crime. Since the goal of an interrogation is to get the suspect to admit involvement or guilt in the crime under investigation, it is more structured in comparison to an interview. The fact that interrogations are accusatory, the suspect should be informed of their rights, and they should be given a chance to confirm or deny the accusations. Police officers use an interrogation with the aim of sourcing information from the suspects, and they encourage them to tell the truth. If the suspect clarifies a single fact asked, then the interrogation has successfully resulted in admission.
In both an interrogation and an interview, the police officer is required to use his or her powers of observation to understand the suspect and try to tell whether they are telling the truth or not (O'Hara & O'Hara, 1956).
Analyze and explain whether the communication in this scenario would be classified as an interview or an interrogation. Apply the comparison and contrast information, the script, and external resources to support your position and rationale.
The communication between Officer Stone and Marty can be classified as an interrogation because Marty is already a suspect. The fact that Officer Stone had already been informed by Johnny that Marty had stolen the blades means that he already holds Marty as a suspect. The goal of the conversation is to make Marty admit his accusations. Another thing that strengthens the classification of this as interrogation is the fact that Officer Stone begins by informing Marty about his rights, something that does not happen in an interview. The officer uses all possible tactics with the hope of getting Marty to confess his crime, and when he does not, Officer Stone takes him into custody, characteristic of an interrogation.
Analyze and discuss at least two different confession elicitation tactics that were used by Officer Stone to get Marty to confess.
There is two confession elicitation tactics that stand out in the interrogation between Officer Stone and Marty. These include:
The PEACE Method
The PEACE (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate) technique is widely embraced as an efficient way of getting a suspect to confess without the need for witnesses. This confession elicitation tactic is very straightforward, and it involves asking the suspect several questions. It operates under the assumption that the liar will slowly build up a series of false information, and will eventually get caught up in a web of endless lies. In the case of Officer Stone and Marty, the PEACE tactic is evidenced where the officer asks Marty a series of questions: who he came with to the shop, why he came to the shop, what he was looking for, and whether he had money. Marty mixes himself in almost all instances. To start with, he claims that he had gone to purchase clothes only, yet he knows the shelf where the blades were. He also has no money despite the fact that he had ‘gone to buy pants and shirts.’ When he gets caught up in the mix, Marty ends up responding ‘I don’t know’ to all the questions asked.
The REID technique
The REID confession elicitation tactic is one that involves the isolation of the suspect from the rest of the world. The officer then starts by making it clear that he knows that the suspect is guilty. If this does not get the suspect to confess, the officer then starts playing the ‘good cop’ and tries to woo the suspect. He tells the suspect that he understands why he had to commit the crime and that it would be best if the suspect came out clean. This tactic is evident in the interrogation under study when Officer Stone tells Marty that he understands why he had to steal the blades: maybe he needed to get a cut but he did not have the money to do so (Kassin, 1997).
Contrast one of these tactics with a tactic that might have been less effective in this situation.
Another tactic tha Officer Stone could have used in this case is lying to Marty that he had seen him putting the blades in his pockets. However, this tactic could not have been effective in getting Marty to confess because he would claim that he did not see the police at the shop and that Officer Stone was just trying to implicate him. This technique differs from the PEACE method in that the officer would not have had to ask many questions in this case. Marty would have either confirmed or denied the accusations without having to beat around the bush.
Evaluate the effectiveness of Officer Stone's efforts.
The goal of Officer Stone was to get Marty to confess the crime that he had committed. The fact that Marty never confessed means that Officer Stone’s efforts were not effective. However, the officer did a good job in his interrogation. First, he remained calm and asked rational questions, to which Marty was unable to respond. All of his questions are directed towards getting Marty to confess, which is crucial in an interrogation. For this reason, we can conclude that Officer Stone was effective in his efforts despite the fact that Marty never confessed.
Analyze and discuss a key area of strength and weakness in his approach
The key area of strength in Officer Stone’s approach was his use of rational questions that seemed to suggest to Marty that the officer believed what he was saying. When Marty said that he had gone shopping for clothes, Officer Stone flows with his story without at any point implicating that what he was saying was a lie. By so doing, it was easier for Marty to open up to the officer.
The weakness observed in Officer Stone’s approach is his lack of patience. Towards the end, when he tells Marty that he is under arrest, Marty starts opening up and says that he had the money. It is at this point that Officer Stone should have slowed down a bit and listened to what Marty had to say. However, the already impatient officer just places Marty under arrest without further questioning (Gudjonsson, 2003).
Identify any fundamental legal issues that Officer Stone may encounter related to how he handled this situation and his choice of tactics.
Officer Stone is not subject to extensive legal issues because he began his interrogation by alerting Marty about his rights. If he had not done this, then the officer would have committed a crime. However, the fact that he arrested Marty before he acknowledged his crime means that he would have to redo the interrogation at the station. Besides, Officer Stone arrests Marty before he acknowledged his crime, which can be translated as using force on a suspect (Leo, 1995).
Evaluate how you would have executed this communication to achieve the confession?
Once Marty stated that he had the money, I would have asked him to show it to me. There are possible chances that the money would not have been enough to purchase clothes. I would have then started working on his lies until he gets overwhelmed and makes a confession (Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, 1992).
Use empirical research in support of your evaluation; suggest how to improve an area of weakness and how to overcome any other obstacles you can identify in this situation.
One key characteristic that an officer should uphold during an interrogation is patience, and this was what Officer Stone was lacking. It is, therefore, important to remain patient the entire interrogation session until you feel like you have reached a dead end. This technique would have been effective in overcoming the obstacles that prevented Marty from confessing during the interrogation.
Predict what would happen if Marty implicated his friend Joe?
If Marty implicated his friend Joe, then it is likely that Joe would have been angered by this betrayal and confessed the truth to Officer Stone. It is, therefore, not surprising that Marty did not let out any incriminating information.
Identify the questions that should be asked to provide evidence to Marty's claim?
Some of the questions that Officer Stone should have continued asking Marty to confirm his claims after he states that he had the money are:
“How much is it?”
“What clothes could have the money bought?”
“Is that in line with what you had come to buy?”
If the answer to the last question is not a “yes,” then Officer Stone should ask:
“If that is the case, then why are we to believe that what you are telling is the truth?”
Marty would the find himself in a dead end, and he would have no choice but to confess (Kassin, 1997).
References
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook . John Wiley & Sons.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist , 52 (3), 221.
Leo, R. A. (1995). Inside the interrogation room. J. Crim. L. & Criminology , 86 , 266.
Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on suspect behavior during police questioning. The British Journal of Criminology , 32 (1), 23-40.
O'Hara, C. E., & O'Hara, G. L. (1956). Fundamentals of criminal investigation (p. 99). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
