Interviewing suspects: practice, science, and future directions

Crime suspects in the USA are typically questioned in a two-step process aimed, first, at behavioural lie detection during a pre-interrogation interview, followed by the elicitation of a confession during the interrogation itself (in Great Britain, the practice of investigative interviewing does not...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kassin, Saul (Author)
Contributors: Appleby, Sara C. ; Perillo, Jennifer Torkildson
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 2010
In: Legal and criminological psychology
Year: 2010, Volume: 15, Issue: 1, Pages: 39-55
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Description
Summary:Crime suspects in the USA are typically questioned in a two-step process aimed, first, at behavioural lie detection during a pre-interrogation interview, followed by the elicitation of a confession during the interrogation itself (in Great Britain, the practice of investigative interviewing does not make this sharp distinction). Research conducted on the first step shows that police investigators often target innocent people for interrogation because of erroneous but confident judgments of deception. Research on the second step shows that innocent people are sometimes induced to confess to crimes they did not commit as a function of certain dispositional vulnerabilities or the use of overly persuasive interrogation tactics. Citing recent studies, this paper proposes that laboratory paradigms be used to help build more diagnostic models of interrogation. Substantively, we suggest that the British PEACE approach to investigative interviewing may provide a potentially effective alternative to the classic American interrogation. As a matter of policy, we suggest that the videotaping of entire interrogations from a balanced camera perspective is necessary to improve the fact finding accuracy of judges and juries who must evaluate confession evidence in court.
ISSN:2044-8333
DOI:10.1348/135532509X449361