Typologies of Interrogation Deception
Different ways of interrogations are used by officers to deal with suspects. Most often we do not know what is going on inside the interrogation room. The main purpose of the interrogation is to get possible answers that pacify their need of evidence to the case. Police are most criticizes of their way handling interrogations during custodial questioning which often uses deception to get whatever evidence needed. According to Skolnick and Leo there are eight types of interrogations deceptions. Interview versus interrogate which is the most subtle way of deception. Most often overlooked strategy the police always employ on suspects. By telling the suspects that he is free and can leave any time thus engages him to voluntary answering of questions that otherwise be considered an interrogation into a non-custodial interview. Miranda Warning, in order for a questioning to be custodial, police recite their Miranda rights. This routinely delivered phrase is always delivered in a recital flat monotone of voice that makes this warning a bureaucratic ritual. Police sometimes used this warning to soften up suspects. The Court in Miranda that police cannot trick or deceive a suspect into waiving Miranda rights. The misrepresenting the nature or seriousness of the Offense which police exaggerate, overstate or understate the offense in order for the suspect to compel in answering questions during custody. Role playing where police play the role of a compassionate friend, bother or father figure who understands the suspect’s situation in order to have their trust then later on seek the opportunity to let the suspect confess for the good of the investigation. Misinterpreting the moral seriousness of the offense is the heart of the interrogation method that propounded by Inbau, Reid and Buckley’s influential police training manual. Police interrogating the case offer suspects excuses or moral justification for their misconduct by providing the suspect with an external attribution