Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lambseniorprojectpaper
Lambseniorprojectpaper
Chloe Lamb
Abstract
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 2
This paper is an overview of the law enforcement system put into place, the interrogation
techniques that are used, and are legally allowed to use, and exactly how that affects the suspects
and victims that may cross paths with it. This paper first covers the psychology of interrogation
and how the current system works, then begins to lay out how there are problems with
interrogation since it may be considered communication and law enforcement are not trained to
treat it that way. Then it covers the laws that restrict interrogation, and aid both law enforcement
and the interviewees, after that it has sections on the victim of a crime and how interrogation
may affect them, and the way a suspect is affected by interrogation. This paper points out the key
differences in the psychological field viewpoint on interrogation of law enforcement, and how
law enforcement themselves feel on the subject, ultimately coming to the conclusion that both
Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst agent Aldrich Ames once said,
justified in using their coercive means. Consistency regarding the techniques is not important;
inducing anxiety and fear is the point. Interrogation in its purest form has been around since the
first law system was put into place. It is also used in many forms, for any type of law
enforcement agency. This includes local police station officers, to federal agents of the CIA. Due
to the broad nature of interrogation, it is better focus on what is done locally, and how that affects
both the suspect of a crime, and the victim of a crime. For the suspect of a crime, interrogation
techniques and practices may possibly induce law enforcement malpractice, false confessions,
and violation of the suspects rights as laid out in the Constitution of the United States. In regards
to the victim of a crime, investigation tactics and certain factors of communication both verbally
and non verbally creating the possibility of the victim lying partially or wholly about the
situation due to their concerns about safety of themselves and those close to them. The
interrogation and investigation techniques used by law enforcement threaten the honesty and
reliability of both the suspect and the victim of a case by using negative psychological
As long as interrogation has been around, it has been considered an art of coercion. The
goal of the interrogator is to break the suspects statement down and make the suspect confess
because in the modern interrogation world, law enforcement assume that because a suspect is
being questioned, they are guilty and see it in their best interest to deny all guilt. Interrogators
and law enforcement have no desire to have an innocent person confess; however, combining
their assumption with certain subtle psychological factors, law enforcement may elicit a false
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 4
confession, making modern police interrogation a problem in the modern world (Scott v. State,
2005).
Interrogation is Communication
to gather information from (a suspect) by means that are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating
due to the fact that both verbal and nonverbal factors are at play in order to elicit a response from
a certain party. It is due to the fact that interrogation is communication that psychological factors
ultimately play a role in the type of response law enforcement will receive from the subject of
questioning. Communication itself is made up of both nonverbal and verbal cues, with non
verbal communication making a significant difference in how the intended message of the sender
is interpreted. While verbal communication may be broken down into two categories, formal and
informal, the messages intended and interpreted are very rarely different due to the
broken down into six categories: chronemics, vocalics, haptics, kinesics, proxemics, and
artifacts. These categories are interpreted nonverbally in order to either supplement the verbal
message, or to interpret the personality, emotional state, or relationship with the person they are
communicating with. The first of nonverbal communication is chronemics, which has to do with
time in terms of social interaction. For example, the time one arrives or leave a place would be a
nonverbal indication of personality. Vocalics is another form, having to do with the voice,
without consideration of the words being spoken; for example tone of voice and volume would
be an indicator of emotional state. Haptics has to do with touch, for example touching someone
when talking being an indicator of the feelings. Kinesics is another form of nonverbal
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 5
communication, having to do with body language, for example the unconscious gestures one
makes while listening or speaking. Proxemics has to do the proximity of a person when
communicating, being an indicator of social standing. The last nonverbal communication factor
is artifacts, like accessories the person is wearing on their body, being an indicator of personality,
and interests (Surbhi, 2015). It is due to the fact that a significant portion of nonverbal
communication is based off of interpretation rather than literal that it is easier to misread signals
sent and received from both oneself and others. However, since this communication does have a
basis of some kind it is possible to be more aware of the signals being sent out from oneself
making communication easier on both parties. Verbal cues on the other hand have less of a
chance to be misinterpreted, with the understanding that it is still possible (Surbhi, 2015).
In 1969, a study was published on defendants and how they use their Miranda rights in
relation to their feelings about the law enforcement system and the people who work within that
system. This study focused on five things: the defendant's reaction to arrest situations, his
perspective on the law enforcement system, his knowledge of the legal rights during the initial
arrest, his understanding of the prior proceedings establishing those rights, and his grasp on the
criminal law procedure. The results of this study proved that anomic defendants, people who
have negative and skeptical views of the world, were less likely to know about their legal rights,
but were also less likely to offer statements to police (Zeitz, Medalie, & Alexander, 1969). While
ones feelings on the system of law enforcement in place currently do have an affect on
interviewees, there are other psychological factors that play a role in determining how one acts
while being interviewed by law enforcement. For example, females and young children are more
likely to be more reserved and intimidated, therefore more likely to be influenced by relentless
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 6
questioning, non-open ended questions, and presentation of false evidence (J. K. Denson,
Personal communication, November 9th, 2016).There are also those who submit false
confessions because they wish to be cooperative with the officer, and that confessing may result
in them receiving clemency; people more likely to do those who do not have the capacity or wish
not to think of the long term consequences of making a confession. Theres also those who the
belief that they must have committed the crime due to psychological factors messing with their
subconscious (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). There also happen to be some police
investigation techniques that are more prone to producing false confessions than others. In
Canada, police have created a new way for undercover cops to elicit confessions; however,
through this technique the chances of receiving a false confession have expanded exponentially.
The technique as described in the article is referred to as the Mr. Big technique. This technique
involves an undercover cop befriending the suspect of a particular crime over the course of
months, spending money on the person in doing activities. The undercover agent then invites the
suspect to join a criminal organization that is actually run by the cops, where they complete
simple activities. After a period of time, the suspect is then informed that they are to advance
within the ranks of the organization; however, before they are to receive the promotion, they
must confess to a crime in return. The suspect is convinced that the confession is for a purpose
through a couple of ways, for example, that the confession is necessary leverage against them
should the issue of betrayal arrive. The confession of the crime is done a majority of the time
orally, sometimes being written, and recorded by the undercover agent for the purpose of being
used in court. This technique had many risks associated with it. One is that if a false confession
should come forward, other evidence and police investigations are then altered from the correct
suspect of a crime (Smith, Stinson, & Patry, 2010). Another technique that may be liable to
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 7
produce false confessions is the producing of false evidence; however, not much research has
been done into the actual results and possible skewing this technique may provide, and the author
It is due to the fact that interrogation is considered to be an art of coercion that laws are
needed to regulate law enforcement to assure the interviewees rights. The United States
Constitution does overview and protect certain rights for suspects, seen in a few of the
amendments such as amendments fourth through the eighth upholding suspects rights so that the
people's rights will not be breached. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the searching and
confiscation of private property without probable cause, or a warrant. The Fifth Amendment
protects suspects from being held for a federal crime unless indictment of a grand jury, having
a trial for the same crime twice, to testify against oneself, and the right to the due process of
law. The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of the suspect in the trial developing in a
reasonable time period with the option of a trial by jury of ones peers, to cross examine
witnesses testifying against him, and to obtain a defense lawyer either through private means or
the public defender's office. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury when
the trial is a civil case. The Eighth Amendment prohibits disproportionate fines, bail, and
prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment ("Bill of Rights," n.d.).
Besides the fact that the United States Constitution protects the suspects rights, there are
other federal and state laws that protect both the suspect of a crime, and the victim of a crime.
There are some states that require recording of all interrogation done while a suspect is in
custody, such as Alaska.In the court case of Stephan v. State, the Supreme Court of Alaska
became the first state of the United States of America to require law enforcement officials to
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 8
record all questioning procedures when a suspect is in custody. This case was a follow up case in
regards to the case of Mallott v. State in which the Supreme Court of Alaska decided that law
enforcement officials must record questioning of a suspect when they are taken into custody. In
this case the petitioners, Malcolm Scott Harris and Donald Stephan were taken into custody and
questioned by law enforcement officials in which both men made incriminating statements.
Recording equipment was present during the interrogation, but was not used during all of the
questioning. Due to the Mallott rule precedent, which stated that law enforcement should record
the questioning when a suspect is in custody as fully as possible, the law enforcement officers
violated the proper proceedings. After the case went to trial and both men were found guilty, they
filed for appeal, in which the Alaska Court of Appeals decided that the officers were in violation
of the Mallott ruling, but refused to reverse the ruling of the lower court. Thus, the men filed for
another appeal and it was heard by the Supreme Court of Alaska. This court decided that the
action of not recording the questioning of a suspect in custody is in direct violation of a suspect's
constitutional rights (Stephan v. State, 1985). According to Thomas Sullivan, Andrew Vail, and
Howard Anderson III, it would be beneficial to both law enforcement officials and the suspect of
a crime if the interrogation was recorded from reading the Miranda rights to the conclusion. They
also state that the recording of interrogation saves time in the judicial proceedings because it
captures reactions and a verbatim recording that cannot be reproduced in later testimony and
questioning (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). There are currently 24 states who mandate
stationhouse recording of all interrogations. Two of these states, did so before the 21st century.
Alaska, as mentioned previously, became the first in 1985 with a State Supreme Court ruling,
and Minnesota became the second in a 1994 case. After that it was ten years before more state
started joining in this strategy. In 2004, Maine passed a statute, and Massachusetts held this with
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 9
a case. Then in 2005, Wisconsin and New Jersey both had a case in which this ruling was held.
In 2006, the District of Columbia and New Mexico passed a statute, while Iowa held a case
regarding the issue. In 2008, Maryland and Nebraska both passed a statute regarding the issue. In
2009, Indian had a case, while Missouri and Montana passed a statute. In 2010, Ohio and Oregon
passed a statute. In 2012, Arkansas had a case, and Michigan passed a statute. In 2013 California
passed a statute requiring the recording of stationhouse interviews. In 2014, Connecticut and
Vermont both passed a statute in the same regard. Utah was the most current state to uphold this
in 2015, with a State Supreme Court adoption of this law. While these states had no trouble in
getting the population to accept and follow these rulings, two states had to review it multiple
times. North Carolina passed a statute in 2007 and 2011 regarding the issue. Illinois passed
statutes in 2002, 2005, and 2013 that now uphold this law ("Custodial Interrogation Recording
Compendium by State," 2014). While many states have mandated recording, the author suggests
that more states do so due to the benefits mentioned previously in the section.
There are some techniques that are used widely throughout the United States that have
common themes of producing an unintended effect. In fact, a study done by the innocence
project showed that 27 percent of a 130 case study of exonerations after conviction was a result
of false confessions (Causes and remedies of wrongful convictions as cited in Sullivan, Vail, &
Anderson, 2008). More studies on that topic, a study done by two professors revealed that 35
percent of a 125 felony case study involved false confessions, and convicted as a result (Drizin &
Leo as cited in Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). The Mr. Big technique used by the Canadian
law enforcement mentioned previously in this paper is one prominent example of how some
techniques are more likely to elicit false confessions than others, but there are also more
commonly used techniques that do not require substantial amounts of money (Smith, Stinson, &
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 10
Patry, 2010). In the United States specifically there are some techniques used by law
enforcement that are legal to use, for example the production of false evidence and the use of a
false depiction of sympathy for the suspect have a strong possibility to contributing to these
numbers (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). Over the years there have been many court cases
determining what is acceptable in terms of interrogation and what is not. Precedents prevent
police from using immoral tactics, but the entire questioning technique is based off the
assumption that a suspect is guilty sees it in their best interest to deny the claim as previously
mentioned in this paper. Questioning techniques are then based on asking a question a certain
way, and then evaluating the response time, with the goal being to catch the suspect in the act of
Victim Interrogation
So much of our justice system has a primary focus on what the rights of the suspect are in
order to uphold the ideal that our society would rather have a guilty person go free than have an
innocent person held for a crime they did not commit. It is because this is the focus that the rights
of a victim may be overlooked. The victim of a crime, however, does have certain rights as laid
According to Victim Law, and the Office of Justice Programs, the core rights of a victim
include:
respect;
The right to attend and be present at criminal justice proceedings;
The right to be heard in the criminal justice process, including the
right to confer with the prosecutor and submit a victim impact statement at
justice process, including the release or escape of the offender, legal rights and
remedies, and available benefits and services, and access to records, referrals, and
other information;
The right to protection from intimidation and harassment;
The right to restitution from the offender;
The right to privacy;
The right to apply for crime victim compensation;
The right to restitution from the offender;
The right to the expeditious return of personal property seized as
unreasonable delay;
The right to enforcement of these rights and access to other
These rights are undoubtedly important, but there are also programs in some state, like Virginia
that do significant social work in making sure the Victim works efficiently with the
commonwealth attorney's office. In Virginia this program is called the Victim and Witness
Assistance Program. This program is a non-profit organization that works in conjunction with the
commonwealth attorneys office to offer assistance to victims of a crime and make sure they get
the resources they need to make it through the trials of going to court ("Virginia Victim
While a victims rights are protected by the law, there are some psychological factors that
can play a role in misunderstanding vital communication signals to where a victim doesnt feel
safe enough to tell the truth regarding an investigation. This is due to the difference in predator
and prey communication signals found in body language, and the natural aspect of which one
takes on according to our experiences. The natural communication signal for an adult human is
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 12
that of a predator, one seeks excitement, and despises boredom. A prey animal, however, seeks
the opposite, wishing most of all to be safe, and live in a place in which predictability of the
future is present. This is the key difference which affects our body language, with predators
being less cautious and more bold in their body language. While the natural communication
signal of an adult human is predatory, younger children, and victims of a crime give off the cues
of a prey animal. This is done unconsciously because of the change in our goals. It is because of
this reversion that victims of a crime make unconscious decisions when faced with a person
whose body language reflects that of a predator. Predatory body language is straightened back,
high shoulders, walking in a straight line, sitting directly in front of someone and looking them in
the eye and while these are natural things that happen unknowingly, these signals do affect
communication. This affects the way a victim will view the situation, and their reflection on
whether they feel safe or not. If a victim is made to feel unsafe for any reason, whether it be
subtle body language cues done unintentionally, or other factors, a victim will be more likely to
lie partially or wholly about their situation, interfering with the investigation process (Edwards,
2016). This has a possibility of interfering with the investigation process, but there are also ways
to avoid this. The author suggests law enforcement learning about subtle body language cues and
what they communicate, and to learn what the difference in predator and prey body language
really is. This will help not only communication with a victim of a crime easier, but
communication in daily life when one begins to understand reactions to certain factors.
The suspect of a crime has rights laid out by the constitution as laid out earlier in the
paper, but there are also factors that need to be reconsidered. The Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United State of America is the amendment in which excessive bail, excessive
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 13
fines, and cruel and unusual punishment are all prohibited (Amendment VIII, n.d.). This is in the
best interest for the suspect of a crime, however, cruel and unusual punishment can apply also to
the interrogation of a suspect rather than solely the punishment of guilty parties. James Denson, a
psychology teacher with a bachelor's degree in psychology, agrees that an interrogation might be
in violation of the Eighth Amendment if the suspect is subjected to long amounts of questioning
without breaks, and denying the suspect sleep, food, or bathroom breaks (J. K. Denson, Personal
When interrogation of the suspect of a crime occurs, theres also the consideration of
false confessions, as mentioned previously in this paper. In order to review the statistics
involving false confessions, one must consider the three main types of false confessions. First
theres the compliant false confessions. These type of confessions are done because the suspect
considers the temporary benefits than the consequences one may face in the future (Sullivan,
Vail, & Anderson, 2008). This also has to do with temporal discounting. Temporal discounting is
a psychological theory in which the immediate situation influences a person's choices more
strongly than the suspended situation. A person does this because they are under the assumption
that what is immediate is certain to happen, and assume that the suspended situation is moreso
probability than the certainty. Therefore, in the situation related to police interrogation, the result
may have influenced by a couple of unconscious decisions. They may have believed that the
interrogation would be forgotten by the experimenter, that they might be able to avoid the request
to come back, or that they may exercise their right to be withdrawn from the study (Madon,
Guyll, Scherr, Greathouse, & Wells, 2012). The second type is the voluntary false confession.
This type of false confession is done for multiple reasons rather than one common purpose.
Some wish to protect the real criminal, while others wish for publicity and attention. There are
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 14
multiple examples of this being the case, such as over 200 confessing to kidnap Charles
Lindberghs baby. The final type is the internalized false confessions. These confessions
happen when over the course of an interrogation the suspect comes to the conclusion that they
have committed the crime for multiple reasons. The suspect is placed interrogation room,
isolated from reality outside of the interrogation, and under great amounts of stress, exhausted
and disoriented suspects being the most vulnerable, police then are legally allowed to confront
them with false evidence. The suspect follows a pattern with internalized confessions, starting
with outright denial, then follows with doubt, which then converts to believing they must have
done it, and finally a complete internalization of the crime (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008).
While police arent intentionally eliciting false confessions for malicious reasons, the law
enforcement system is shaped in such a way that these incidents happen more often than they
should.
Conclusion
In researching the law enforcement system in place and the effects of that system, the
author has come to the realization that while the current system works, it is not the most efficient
system . Law enforcement interrogation is done in such a way that both suspects and victims can
find themselves in vulnerable situations that jeopardize the rights in place as set out by the laws
of the land. While both suspect and victims do have rights set out by law, it does not cover the
subtle loops that psychologically affect both parties. Interrogation was not created and is not used
to be an evil that recants rights, but unless the law enforcement and psychology and social work
community come together to review the problems laid out previously in the paper, the system
will not work as efficiently as the possibility allows. The law is the law, but where the laws fail,
References
Ambinder, M. (2009, April 21). Military's interrogation techniques: A history. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/militarys-interrogation-techniques-a-
history/16469/
documents/bill-of-rights/
CIA tactics: What is 'enhanced interrogation'? (2014, December 10). Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11723189
Coughlin, A. (2009). Interrogation stories. Virginia Law Review, 95(7), 1599-1661. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25593654
https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/22.%20Criminal%20Investigation%20and%20Police
%20Interrogation%20of%20Aborigines/law-relating-interrog
Custodial interrogation recording compendium by State. (2014, April 11). Retrieved from
https://www.nacdl.org/usmap/crim/30262/48121/d/
webster.com/dictionary/interrogate#legalDictionary
Dripps, D. (1988). Foreword: Against police interrogation: And the privilege against self-
doi:10.2307/1143405
Edwards, S. (2016, December 18). Come Home for Christmas. Retrieved from
http://msindianhorses.blogspot.com/2016/12/come-home-for-christmas_18.html
Farrington, D. (1981). Psychology and police interrogation. British Journal of Law and Society,
Feld, B. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of policy and practice. The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 97(1), 219-316. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042825
Flintoff, C. (2009, April 22). Timeline: History of harsh interrogation techniques. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103376537
4 Police interrogation techniques you should know (And why not all of them work). (2014, April
you-should-know-and-why-not-all-of-them-work/
Gibson, D. A., Billings, R. B., Callow, G., Dunn, M., Greene, N. L., Kellam, J. L., . . . Taslitz, A.
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/electronic%20recordation%20of%20custodial
%20interrogations/custodialinterrog_draft_am09.pdf
communication-strategies-and-key-personality-constructs-jessica-heuback/default.htm
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 17
Inbau, F. (1999). Police interrogation: A practical necessity. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Kassin, S., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating
promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 233-251.
Kassin, S., Leo, R., Meissner, C., Kimberly D. Richman, Lori H. Colwell, Amy-May Leach, &
Dana La Fon. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police
practices and beliefs.Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 381-400. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499542
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=vulr
Leo, R. (1996). Miranda's revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law & Society
Madon, S., Guyll, M., Scherr, K., Greathouse, S., & Wells, G. (2012). Temporal discounting: The
differential effect of proximal and distal consequences on confession decisions. Law and
Magid, L. (2001). Deceptive police interrogation practices: How far is too far? Michigan Law
McCoy, A. W. (2006, December 6). The U.S. has a history of using torture. Retrieved from
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32497
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 18
Meissner, C., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. (2010). The need for a positive psychological
approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law
Surbhi, S. (2015, April 2). Difference between verbal and nonverbal communication. Retrieved
from http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-verbal-and-non-verbal-
communication.html
Scott v. State (Court of Appeals of Texas March 24, 2005) (Google Scholar, Dist. file).
Smith, S., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. (2010). High-risk interrogation: Using the "Mr. Big
technique" to elicit confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 39-40. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40608054
Sullivan, T., Vail, A., & Anderson, H. (2008). The case for recording police interrogations.
https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp
Zeitz, L., Medalie, R., & Alexander, P. (1969). Anomie, powerlessness, and police interrogation.
The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 60(3), 314-322.
doi:10.2307/1141985