Suspect Interrogation Techniques

The techniques or the number of possible techniques used during an interrogation are limited only by your imagination and modified by limitations placed upon you by the laws and courts. Two of the most commonly used techniques are the psychological, and the logic and reasoning techniques.

Psychological approach. This approach is designed to focus the thoughts and emotions of the suspect on the moral aspects of the crime and thus bring about a realization that a wrong has been committed. Great care should be taken in using this approach to make sure that the suspect does not become so emotional as to render any statement made inadmissible.

You may begin this type of interrogation by discussing the moral seriousness of the offense; by appealing to the suspect's civic-mindedness or to responsibilities of citizenship; or by emphasizing the effects of his or her acts on the suspect's family or close relatives. From this beginning, proceed to such matters as the sorrows and suffering of the victim and the victim's relatives and friends.

The suspect may tend to become emotional when discussing a mother or father; a childhood and childhood associations; early moral and religious training; and persons held in very high esteem, such as school teachers, religious instructors, athletic coaches, neighbors, or friends. This tendency is particularly true when a suspect is guilty of a crime that he or she feels violates the moral values that are associated with these people. Often, the emotional appeal of some person or personal relationship increases in intensity with the passage of time and with the distance separating the suspect from a former environment. By emphasizing the contrast between a present and a former way of life, you may intensify the suspect's emotional response, especially when he or she has deserted a family, has become orphaned or otherwise separated from a family, or when the way of life prescribed in early moral and religious training has been forsaken.

The psychological approach is often successful with a young person and with a first offender who has not had time to become a hardened criminal or to develop a thinking pattern typical of a hardened criminal.

You must realize that skill is required in using this approach. The basic emotions and motivations most commonly associated with criminal acts are hate, fear, love, and desire for gain. By careful inquiry into the suspect's thinking, feeling, and experience, you are likely to touch upon some basic weakness and thereby induce in the suspect a genuine desire to talk. Attempt to think along the same lines as the suspect, and to make every effort to establish a common ground of understanding. Assist the suspect to construct a "face saving" rationalization of the motives for committing the criminal act, and thereby make talking about the crime easier.

Logic and reasoning. The habitual criminal who feels no sense of wrongdoing in having committed a crime must normally be convinced by you that guilt can be easily established or is already established by testimony or available evidence. You should point out to the suspect the futility of denying guilt. The suspect should be confronted at every turn with testimony and evidence to refute alibis, that his or her guilt is definitely a matter against which no lies will defend.

Other techniques. Should psychological, and logic and reasoning techniques appear inappropriate, or fail to produce an admission or confession, techniques of a more subtle nature may be used.

You should plan the use of your technique carefully, so you will not be obvious to the suspect. Furthermore, you should be careful not to jeopardize the success of further interrogative effort by disclosing to the suspect just how much or how little information has been obtained.

The serious student of interrogative techniques can find a variety of them discussed in several technical books written on the subject. You must, however, be alert to detect, among the various authors, techniques that differ in name only. You must also select only those that fit your own personality.

Some of these techniques follow:

THE HYPOTHETICAL STORY. Relate a story of a fictitious crime that varies only in minute details from the offense that the suspect is believed to have committed. After a lapse of time, request that the suspect write the details of the crime that have been related. If guilty, the suspect may include details that are identical with the actual offense and that were not mentioned in the fictitious crime. When confronted with this fact, the suspect may be influenced to make an admission or confession or may be forced to lie some more to extricate himself from a difficult position.

THE "COLD SHOULDER". Invite the suspect to your office. If the suspect accepts the invitation, he or she is taken to the crime scene. The investigators accompanying the suspect say nothing to the suspect or to each other; they simply await a reaction. This technique permits the suspect, if guilty, to surmise that you may have adequate evidence to prove guilt, and may induce him or her to make an admission or confession. If witnesses whose identities are known to the suspect are available, they may be requested to walk past the crime scene without saying or doing anything to indicate to the suspect that they are aware of his or her presence. This procedure serves to intensify the suggestion that the facts of guilt are already established.

PLAYING ONE SUSPECT AGAINST ANOTHER. This technique may be used if more than one person is suspected of having been involved in the commission of a crime. There are many variations of this method. In all variations, one suspect is played against another by purposely encouraging the belief of one suspect that a companion in the crime is cooperating or has talked about the crime and has laid the blame on the suspect you are interrogating.

The suspects normally are separated and are not allowed to communicate with each other. Periodically, they may be allowed to glimpse or to observe each other from a distance, preferably when one is doing something that the other may construe as cooperation and as prejudicial to the observer's interests. You may sometimes confront the stronger suspect with known facts that have been allegedly furnished by the weaker suspect. Known details of the crime maybe mentioned in the presence of the stronger suspect under conditions that compromise the weaker suspect. One suspect may be cordially treated, or even released while the other may be given the cold shoulder.

This method is most successful when you infer rather than assert that the suspect has confessed.

Another technique is to play down the offense. An example of this would be in larcenies of large dollar items. Many times, if you show more interest in the recovery of the property rather than the actual role played by the suspect, results are better.