Module 3 Assignment 1
Module 3 Overview
PLEASE SEE: U.S. STATESIDE SUSPECT DETAINEE RIGHTS
The use of the polygraph is based on the association between a physiological reaction and a deception. The use of a lie detector is considered controversial. Some states have ruled that the lie detector is admissible in court, while others have not. In this module, from your textbook, you will read about controversies related to the use of lie detectors. If you live and work in a state that allows lie detector results in court, according to the Reid Institute, the following are the steps to conduct a polygraph examination (John E. Reid & Associates Inc., n.d.):
"A personal conference or telephone discussion during which the polygraph examiner obtains a complete history of the case background information;
"A pretest interview with the subject which will generally last 45 to 60 minutes, during which the examiner discusses the issue under investigation, thoroughly reviews all of the test questions that will be asked during the examination, and assesses the individual's emotional and physiological suitability to take the test;
"A series of 4 to 6 tests, during which the subject's physiological responses are recorded as they answer a set of pre-established questions concerning the issue under investigation; and,
"A review and interpretation of the polygraph charts, from which the examiner will reach one of three conclusions-that the subject is telling the truth; that the subject is not telling the truth; or, that the results are inconclusive (para. 2)."
When the interview is completed, the clients receive verbal feedback and a report is written that would include a list of salient questions and responses to further clarify findings. An evaluation about the subject's use of deception is included in the report. Lie detector findings may be an important factor to consider along with results of interrogation and psychological and risk assessment findings.
In this module's readings, you will also consider the purpose and use of the Miranda warnings in relation to interviews and interrogations. We are all familiar with the Miranda warnings portrayed constantly in movies and television shows: "You have the right to remain silent. If you waive the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you." The long list of cautions the police provide when arresting a suspect comes from the Supreme Court decision in the case Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
One of the goals of this module is to review Miranda and other legal decisions so that we can discover why the Supreme Court has determined that the constitution prohibits certain police actions during an interrogation. One of the more interesting legal cases is Colorado v. Connelly (1986) in which the Supreme Court held that confessions are acceptable under the constitution even if the confession is in response to a command hallucination—a voice telling a murderer that he or she must confess.
Finally, closing the interview in an interrogation involves not only getting the suspect to admit his or her participation and role in a crime but also getting the suspect to admit it in a way that cannot be negated at a later time. This also involves getting a confession and an explanation and then preparing a statement in a way that can stand up as evidence in a court of law. You will learn about some of these techniques in this module.
An interesting and troublesome phenomenon is that some individuals confess to crimes that they did not commit. How could this be? There are people who confess to a crime knowing that they did not commit the crime in question. However, what is even more problematic is that some people confess to crimes—believing that they committed the crimes in question—because of the interrogation methods used. In other words, some interrogators engage in practices and techniques that lead some suspects to believe that they actually committed the crimes in question, when they didn't. In this module, you will explore how this happens.
References:
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
John E. Reid & Associates Inc. (n.d.). Polygraph examinations. Retrieved from
http://www.reid.com/services/r_polygraph.html
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Learning Outcome
Apply and integrate ethical and legal standards within the practice of interrogation and interviewing with all populations, including special populations such as youth and the aged, vulnerable individuals, victims and family members, and cultural groups.
Critically evaluate practice strategies used and information obtained using current research and best practices related to interviewing and interrogation.
False Confessions
The most frequently conducted evaluation is competency to stand trial (CST). Some researchers estimate that nearly sixty thousand CST evaluations are conducted annually. It should be noted that CST is a fairly low bar and is known as the Dusky standard. It simply means that someone has a rational ability to communicate with his or her attorney and has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. This is basically a knowledge-based competency in which a defendant understands the legal proceedings. We could compare this to a decisional competency in which a person has the ability to make decisions, such as entering into a plea bargain or deciding between a jury trial or a bench trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that for all forms of competency, the Dusky standard would be the standard used.
The Supreme Court ruling is important because there are other forms of competencies to be considered. In addition to CST, we can examine an individual's competency to waive his or her rights, such as the right to counsel. The Supreme Court has also ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who does not understand the legal proceedings against him or her, so we can evaluate an individual to determine if he or she is competent to be executed. If not, he or she may be treated in order to restore competency so that he or she can then be executed. There is also the question if someone is competent to provide a confession to law enforcement. The concern here is that if someone is not competent, it may lead to a false confession.
If you think about it, a confession is the ideal resolution to a crime. A suspect confesses to a crime, is convicted, and is sentenced. This makes it all very clean and resolved. However, what happens when the confession is false. Will a jury believe that someone would confess to a crime he or she did not commit? And, will a jury be able to overlook such apparently conclusive evidence as a confession? Once a confession is made, it trumps all other evidence, even deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence. For example, a man who confessed to a crime that occurred while in police custody was sentenced to life in prison for the crime. The Central Park jogger case in which five youths confessed to a brutal rape and beating, which they did not commit, is perhaps one of the more notorious examples of false confessions. These young men all spent time in prison for the charge and were only exonerated after having served their sentences of up to thirteen years.
Historical Perspectives
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. initiated the war on terror. Part of this campaign included the extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to third-party countries that would often torture the suspects. A large number of detainees were transported to the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp (Gitmo), Cuba.
Coercive interrogation techniques were used on terrorist detainees at the US military base at Gitmo, including techniques considered by some to be torture techniques. A report published by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in 2006 describes the inhuman interrogation techniques that were used, including sexual assault or humiliation; sleep deprivation; sensory deprivation; solitary confinement or isolation; mock executions; forced medication; exposure to temperature extremes, such as prolonged exposure to cold; exposure to loud, sustained noise; exposure to other people being tortured; humiliation and insults; and the use of guard dogs to threaten detainees. One detainee was interrogated for over fifty-four days, eighteen to twenty hours per day. He was threatened with a military dog, was forced to wear a bra, had a thong placed on his head, was forced to hear insults about female family members, and was forced to wear a dog leash and made to perform dog tricks.
Another example is that of a Bosnian prisoner turned over to the Americans who was tightly bound, causing his arms to lose feeling. He had a mask over his mouth as well as sensory deprivation goggles over his eyes and sound mufflers over his ears. He was forced to sit for hours at a time in subfreezing weather, threatened by guard dogs, yelled at, beaten on the upper torso, and left in extreme weather for hours at a time without food or water.
Other techniques included solitary confinement for up to a year at a time; sleep deprivation for days, weeks, or even months in one case; exposure to temperature extremes, kicking, punching, and beating; threats of torture by foreign countries that despised their nationality; denial of medical treatment; deprivation of food and water for a prolonged period at a time; and sensory deprivation. Some prisoners were also water-boarded or shackled to the floor and interrogated for hours (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2006).
Mohammed al-Qahtani, the so-called twentieth hijacker of 9/11, was also interrogated at Gitmo. His interrogation included being water-boarded, being forced to take fluids with intravenous (IV) therapy, being denied the use of a toilet, being humiliated by female personnel, and being stripped naked and shaved and smeared with fake menstrual blood.
It is likely that these coercive techniques led to false confessions. Forensic psychology professionals have found that coercive physical and psychological techniques can lead to false confessions. Law enforcement has used coercive techniques that have generated false confessions from people who were later found to be innocent. It is more difficult to verify false confessions from terrorist suspects due to the type of information that is obtained with a lack of collateral resources.
Reference:
Center for Constitutional Rights. (2006). Report on torture and cruel, inhuman,
and degrading treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Retrieved from http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf
Possible Reasons of False Confessions
PLEASE SEE: CONFESSION TO CRIMES NOT COMMITTED
However, many mental health professionals suggest that false confessions are due to interrogation tactics. In one court alone, over a ten-year period, over 240 confessions were deemed inadmissible due to the way the confessions were obtained.
In the United States, many law enforcement officers are trained to use an interrogation tactic called the Reid technique. The Reid technique encourages interrogators to take an accusatory approach with a firm belief that the individual is guilty. Also, many officers are mistakenly trained to believe that they can detect deception, whereas the bulk of research supports that individuals are no better than chance at identifying a lie. The law and the Reid technique allow the use of deception, such as telling the individual they have evidence against him or her or minimizing the consequences of a confession and maximizing the consequences if the individual does not confess. Researchers have suggested the use of the preparation and planning, engage and explain, account, closure, and evaluate (PEACE) technique.
The PEACE technique is widely used in the United Kingdom and does not result in so many false confessions.
Please note that if you are in law enforcement, this discussion is not meant to indict the profession. Rather, this is an excellent example of some of the differences we see between the legal system and the profession of psychology.
COMPONENTS OF THE PEACE TECHNIQUE
Conclusion
A confession can be one of the cleanest and perhaps the best ways to resolve a crime. A suspect admits to his or her wrongdoing and is apparently remorseful and willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions.
Interrogators can use a variety of techniques. In the United States, many law enforcement officers are trained in the Reid technique. Using this interrogation technique, the interrogator approaches the suspect with a conviction that he or she is guilty and simply needs to get a confession. Interrogations can use deceptive tactics, such as to concoct false evidence that "proves" the suspect's guilt. This could be lying about physical evidence that places the suspect at the crime scene or lying statements from witnesses or codefendants that seem to ensure the guilt of the defendant. The interrogator may also use minimization and maximization. The interrogator may reassure the suspect that if he or she confesses to the crime, he or she will be lenient, whereas if he or she refuses to confess, he or she will face the maximum penalty.
These types of tactics can cause innocent people to provide a false confession. They may be individuals with low intelligence quotients (IQs), juveniles, or highly suggestible people who can be easily persuaded to confess. Forensic psychology professionals have studied the issue of false confessions, and they can help law enforcement develop appropriate interrogation techniques that will minimize false confessions.
