What’s Your Recommendation?

What’s Your Recommendation?
Module 2 Overview The most important element that exists in both interviewing and interrogating is the development of good information. Forensic psychology professionals are typically interested in developing interview techniques that concern feelings, beliefs, and emotions. They do not assign validity to these expressions except in the sense of personal or subjective validity. Truth is what is true for the client. Interrogators often believe that they can develop a sense for when they are being lied to. They begin to notice certain behaviors that occur in a suspect when they think that the suspect is lying. On the basis of the presence or absence of certain behaviors in a suspect they are interrogating, interrogators often experience an increase or decrease in the suspect’s confidence if the suspect had actually committed the crime. The problem is, interrogators may be quite mistaken about the meaning of nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal behavior is like dreams—many interpretations are possible, and it’s often not possible to verify the interpretations. Indeed, an interrogator’s conviction that a suspect is lying can be one of the factors that leads to a false confession. Forensic psychology professionals devise experiments and research to investigate the meaning of nonverbal behavior, and their findings do not generally support the assertions of interrogators that certain interpretations should be associated with certain behaviors. Think about it this way: Have you ever been nervous when you were lying? Think about a time when you were nervous for reasons unrelated to lying. Maybe you were in a job interview. Maybe you were hoping to impress a first date. Do you think there is something particularly different about one form of nervousness as opposed to another? As it turns out, there is not. Certain behaviors are more common when a person is nervous, but there are many reasons to be nervous in an interrogation that are unrelated to lying. Forensic psychologists are interested in reaching the right conclusions for the right reasons. Describe, explain, and integrate the role differences and outcome differences between psychological interviewing and assessment and interviewing and interrogation in the context of criminal investigations, workplace investigations, and the wide variety of settings in which investigations take place. Analyze and apply models of and approaches to interrogation and interviewing across the diversity of forensic professional settings, legal situations, and different types of interviewee. 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. Interviewing; Interrogation; Deception Some writers like to suggest that interviewing and interrogating are a blend of art and science. The reality is that we should, as forensic psychology professionals, emphasize the science of the process and rely less on the art. The science of psychology can add reliable and valid strategies to both the interviewing and the interrogating processes. Just as mental health professionals rely on the psychometric properties of psychological test instruments, we should establish the adequate psychometric properties for interviewing and interrogating techniques. We can identify techniques that are reliable and valid and then develop data for normative groups. Once we establish these techniques, we can train other practitioners on these skills and evaluate the effectiveness of training. Such an approach will help reduce false confessions as well as guilty offenders from going free. In the forensic psychology program, you have learned about the differences between the role of the clinician and the forensic mental health professional. You have also discussed the ethical dilemmas faced by mental health professionals working professionally in the legal arena. Much of this discussion has focused on the practice of the profession, such as in conducting evaluations or testifying in court. However, these differences are also present in research. For example, much of the psychological research on the detection of deception identifies weaknesses in the area and generally concludes that most trained professionals cannot detect a lie any better than chance. However, much of the criminal justice and law enforcement literature suggests that it is possible to identify a liar based on verbal and nonverbal behaviors. It is important to note that there are dissenting parties on both sides of the argument; some law enforcement writers challenge the assumptions, whereas some professional psychological researchers argue that detection is possible.
What’s Your Recommendation?
Changes in U.S. Interrogation Policy Legally sanctioned interrogation techniques have drastically changed over the past decade. Following September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, issued the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were not authorized in Army Field Manual 2-22-3 to be applied to “illegal combatants.” The Army Field Manual determines the legally sanctioned use and limits of interrogation. Afterward, reports of abuse in federal detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prisons, and US facilities in Afghanistan (such as Abu Ghraib), began to surface. On investigation of the report of torture at Abu Ghraib, the torture was found to relate to “(1) The military’s training program, (2) authorization for torture and abuse, (3) systemic pressures, (4) bureaucratic protections, and (5) the strategic use of dehumanization” (Lankford, 2010, p. 21). On July 25, 2005, the Detainee Treatment Act was initiated by Senator John McCain, a former torture victim and prisoner of war (POW) in the Vietnam War. The intent of this act was to restrict government interrogators to the use of only the techniques sanctioned in the Army Field Manual. On January 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491 on his second day of presidency, which restricted methods beyond the Army Field Manual as well as previously legal methods of interrogation found in the Army Field Manual. This order resulted in the discontinuation of abuse and torture of US detainees. It is necessary to know about these legal changes in order to learn about and stay within the boundaries of the field of interrogation. Reference: Lankford, A. (2010). Assessing the Obama standard for interrogations: An           analysis of Army Field Manual 2-22.3. Studies in Conflict and           Terrorism, 33(1), 20–35. Deception in Interrogations In 2000, the Manchester Metropolitan Police found the Manchester Manual among a member of Al Qaeda’s possessions. This document provided examples and techniques for Al Qaeda members to resist interrogation if one became detained. The discovery of this document is just one example of the ways that offenders may preplan and use deception to avoid legal charges and convictions in the interrogation process. While not all those who commit a crime engage in deception, using techniques to identify and verify truthfulness is an important aspect of interrogation (Clemens, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2013). Literature on the use of deception and truthfulness in interrogations supports that people who are guilty have more knowledge about the crime that they do not want interrogators to know about; so they withhold this data as a means to avoid criminal sanctions (Clemens et al., 2013). It is also common for a guilty person to intentionally provide false data while the non-guilty tend to focus on communicating more data than those being deceitful because the non-guilty have little to gain by withholding facts or details. While this may be the case for some suspects, Hartwig, Granhag, and Strömwall (2007) found that those who were non-truthful tended to tell a detailed story, told a consistent story, or lied about the data provided. Also, Strömwall and Willen (2011) found that deceivers with a criminal history engaged in strategies to deal with an interrogation by managing information they disclosed, avoiding providing information, keeping their stories simple, or reporting data that was close to the truth but was rich in detail. The wide range of ways to engage in deception shows how difficult it is for interrogators to use specific rules or patterns to decipher truthfulness during an interrogation. Due to the inconsistencies in data, many interrogators will turn to their instincts to determine truthfulness of their suspects. As mentioned earlier, this may result in biased interrogation and false confessions. In your assigned readings, you will further explore factors to consider when identifying and managing deception as well as guidelines to deal with your own biases within this process. To increase the accuracy of your assessment, it is helpful to ask yourself whether this person fits a pattern of behavior that is consistent with deception. Are there other factors that could account for his or her behavior? Could ethnic, gender, or diversity factors explain the behavior? Are there individual factors, such as mental illness, developmental disabilities, or ideographic dimensions that might account for the behavior? On the basis of the changes in interrogation policies and difficulties in identifying deception in interrogation, DeClue (2010) recommends the following: all interrogations should be video-recorded, agencies should not use “presumed guilty” techniques on suspects, and interviews should focus on finding the truth rather than coercing uncooperative suspects into a confession. These recommendations help forensic psychology professionals maintain the current ethical and legal standards. References: Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2013). Counter-           interrogation strategies when anticipating questions on intentions.           Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(1),           125–138. doi:10.1002/jip.1387 DeClue, G. (2010). Three things that should be used to guide investigative           interviews by military and intelligence agencies. The Journal of           Psychiatry and Law, 38, 251–262. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent           suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime           and Law, 13(2), 213–227. Strömwall, L. A., & Willen, R. M. (2011). Inside criminal minds: Offenders’           strategies when lying. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender           Profiling, 8(3), 271–281. doi:10.1002/jip.148 Changes in U.S. Interrogation Policy Legally sanctioned interrogation techniques have drastically changed over the past decade. Following September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, issued the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were not authorized in Army Field Manual 2-22-3 to be applied to “illegal combatants.” The Army Field Manual determines the legally sanctioned use and limits of interrogation. Afterward, reports of abuse in federal detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prisons, and US facilities in Afghanistan (such as Abu Ghraib), began to surface. On investigation of the report of torture at Abu Ghraib, the torture was found to relate to “(1) The military’s training program, (2) authorization for torture and abuse, (3) systemic pressures, (4) bureaucratic protections, and (5) the strategic use of dehumanization” (Lankford, 2010, p. 21). On July 25, 2005, the Detainee Treatment Act was initiated by Senator John McCain, a former torture victim and prisoner of war (POW) in the Vietnam War. The intent of this act was to restrict government interrogators to the use of only the techniques sanctioned in the Army Field Manual. On January 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491 on his second day of presidency, which restricted methods beyond the Army Field Manual as well as previously legal methods of interrogation found in the Army Field Manual. This order resulted in the discontinuation of abuse and torture of US detainees. It is necessary to know about these legal changes in order to learn about and stay within the boundaries of the field of interrogation. Reference: Lankford, A. (2010). Assessing the Obama standard for interrogations: An           analysis of Army Field Manual 2-22.3. Studies in Conflict and           Terrorism, 33(1), 20–35. Deception in Interrogations In 2000, the Manchester Metropolitan Police found the Manchester Manual among a member of Al Qaeda’s possessions. This document provided examples and techniques for Al Qaeda members to resist interrogation if one became detained. The discovery of this document is just one example of the ways that offenders may preplan and use deception to avoid legal charges and convictions in the interrogation process. While not all those who commit a crime engage in deception, using techniques to identify and verify truthfulness is an important aspect of interrogation (Clemens, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2013). Literature on the use of deception and truthfulness in interrogations supports that people who are guilty have more knowledge about the crime that they do not want interrogators to know about; so they withhold this data as a means to avoid criminal sanctions (Clemens et al., 2013). It is also common for a guilty person to intentionally provide false data while the nonguilty tend to focus on communicating more data than those being deceitful because the nonguilty have little to gain by withholding facts or details. While this may be the case for some suspects, Hartwig, Granhag, and Strömwall (2007) found that those who were nontruthful tended to tell a detailed story, told a consistent story, or lied about the data provided. Also, Strömwall and Willen (2011) found that deceivers with a criminal history engaged in strategies to deal with an interrogation by managing information they disclosed, avoiding providing information, keeping their stories simple, or reporting data that was close to the truth but was rich in detail. The wide range of ways to engage in deception shows how difficult it is for interrogators to use specific rules or patterns to decipher truthfulness during an interrogation. Due to the inconsistencies in data, many interrogators will turn to their instincts to determine truthfulness of their suspects. As mentioned earlier, this may result in biased interrogation and false confessions. In your assigned readings, you will further explore factors to consider when identifying and managing deception as well as guidelines to deal with your own biases within this process. To increase the accuracy of your assessment, it is helpful to ask yourself whether this person fits a pattern of behavior that is consistent with deception. Are there other factors that could account for his or her behavior? Could ethnic, gender, or diversity factors explain the behavior? Are there individual factors, such as mental illness, developmental disabilities, or ideographic dimensions that might account for the behavior? On the basis of the changes in interrogation policies and difficulties in identifying deception in interrogation, DeClue (2010) recommends the following: all interrogations should be video-recorded, agencies should not use “presumed guilty” techniques on suspects, and interviews should focus on finding the truth rather than coercing uncooperative suspects into a confession. These recommendations help forensic psychology professionals maintain the current ethical and legal standards. References: Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2013). Counter-           interrogation strategies when anticipating questions on intentions.           Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(1),           125–138. doi:10.1002/jip.1387 DeClue, G. (2010). Three things that should be used to guide investigative           interviews by military and intelligence agencies. The Journal of           Psychiatry and Law, 38, 251–262. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent           suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime           and Law, 13(2), 213–227. Strömwall, L. A., & Willen, R. M. (2011). Inside criminal minds: Offenders’           strategies when lying. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender           Profiling, 8(3), 271–281. doi:10.1002/jip.148 Conclusion In this module, we examined the role of a forensic psychology professional in the interviewing and interrogating process. We took a scientific look at the research on detecting deception through verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The bulk of the research supports that it is not possible to detect deception through the careful observation of verbal or nonverbal behaviors. However, there are some authors in both law enforcement and psychology who suggest that it is possible to detect deception by “reading” people’s behavior. So how do we reconcile these contradictory findings? Part of the answer can lie in methodology. Some of the studies supporting positive results have been questioned in the literature on methodological grounds. But part of the answer may also be that some of the commentators have a vested interest in arguing that detection is possible. Many law enforcement personnel are trained in techniques purported to detect deception. The trainers and marketers of these techniques have a vested business interest. The detection of deception is big business. The government has spent over one billion dollars on training to detect deception from nonverbal behaviors, with results no better than chance. Companies that sell the so-called voice stress analyzers claim that they can detect deception by changes in the voice. They market these instruments for use on the telephone or in person. One company even publishes its own “scientific journal” with studies touting the device’s success. However, this is not a peer-reviewed journal and simply a marketing tool used by the company. As forensic psychology professionals, we need to be able to critically evaluate the research literature and decide if conclusions are supported by evidence. But we also need to respect the differences in opinions. We need to approach the data with an open mind and be open to new findings. This approach does not mean that we accept anecdotal evidence as support for a conclusion. It is important for forensic mental health professionals to have a solid background in research methodology and statistical analysis. Also, professionals need to rely on the peer-reviewed literature and cannot accept information published in books or commercial websites at face value. As forensic psychology professionals, we are familiar with the Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. Part of the Daubert standard requires that the scientific evidence has been subjected to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We need to hold the same standard to claim that individuals can detect deception by observing verbal or nonverbal behavior.