Last week, as part of your Assignment, you proposed a process, policy, or legal change to address a legal or ethical issue in criminal investigation. You return to that change here by discussing it with your colleagues and connecting it to a wider social change. As you engage in this Discussion, use your personal and professional experiences to enrich your responses.

Post a response to the following:

• Briefly summarize the legal or ethical issue you wrote about in the Week 5 Assignment.
• Explain the process, policy, or legal change you proposed in your Week 5 Assignment.
• Explain how this change contributes to social change.

Deception in Interrogation

The interrogation process is an essential part of data collection necessary for effective solution of crimes. The key objective of interrogation is to obtain a confession from the suspects and subsequently close a case. Alternatively, the interrogation is used to acquire crucial information necessary for the solution of a case. Police officers adopt various interrogation strategies to optimize the acquisition of the necessary information. This paper evaluates the use of deception in interrogation with a particular focus on its acceptability and how it has evolved over time.

Summarize the ethical or legal issue you have chosen.

Deception in interrogation is often characterized using dishonest tactics in the process of extracting information from suspects (Margareth & Mcadams, 2021). The approach is deemed unethical given the fact that it increases the likelihood of false confession. Notably, the application of the strategy encourages an individual to think in a certain perspective which may not be true. Also, deception tricks individuals to admit to crimes which may not be necessarily true, an aspect which leads to the conviction of innocent persons.

Explain how the issue has evolved over time.

Police officers have employed deception as an interrogation technique for a long. The approach was first developed by John Reid and had a strong emphasis on psychological manipulation as a means of generating the necessary information from suspects. The approach was characterized by isolating a suspect from their associates and then providing them with untrue information as a method of persuading them to submit the sought after facts.

In the course of time, numerous statutory measures have been brought in to constrain the usage of fabrication in questioning. Among the earliest laws to reduce its implementation was the Miranda v. Arizona ruling, that necessitated law enforcers to advise a suspect of their privilege to maintain mute during interrogation. The Miranda decision made it possible for suspects to avoid deceptive techniques often employed by police officers during interrogation.

Besides the Miranda decisions, ethical concerns have led to increased restrictions on the use of deception in interrogation. Notably, the concern that the approach leads to the generation of incorrect evidence and the increased likelihood of convicting the wrong person has encouraged the limitation of its application. This condition has also been bolstered by the observation of the high incarceration rates in the United States, which have largely affected minority groups such as African Americans. The emergence of such deviations points to the skewed nature of evidence collection adopted by police officers. The advances in forensic science are another development which has reduced the need for deceptive interrogation to acquire the necessary evidence for the handling of cases (Woody, 2019). Notably, the development of DNA as a key technology for evidence collection and processing has significantly enhanced the determination of cases. Also, the adoption of video recording as an essential aspect of the interrogation has reduced the likelihood that police officers may employ unethical strategies such as the use of deception.

My Position on Deception in Interrogation

I believe deception in interrogation is an inappropriate technique, given its adverse effects on the determination of cases. As highlighted by Woody (2019), despite the benefits accrued by police officers from deception during interrogation, its effectiveness in the current society is rapidly diminishing. Similarly, Bang et al. (2018) indicate that despite the measures put in place to reduce the use of deception in interrogation, there are indications that the approach is still widely employed. Further, the study shows that the use of the strategy often results in disastrous effects given their coercive nature, which can easily elicit false confessions. This assertion shows that deception increases the likelihood of false confessions, which can undermine the delivery of justice. Notably, this condition increases the risk of innocent individuals being convicted. Further, Havens (2021) postulates that the need to secure an arrest often overpowers the need for justice when police officers are pressurized to resolve cases. In such instances, the police officers may compel individuals to make false confessions as a means of hurriedly closing the case. Such developments are often detrimental to innocent individuals as they end up being convicted of crimes they did not commit. This aspect, as such, highlights the dangers of allowing deception in interrogation as it allows police officers to hurriedly complete the evidence collection without regard to the needs of the individuals.

Policy and legal change proposals for preventing deception in interrogation.

Based on the above views, it would be imperative that police officers be restricted from using deception in interrogation. Specifically, it should be made mandatory that all police officers should avoid the technique. This recommendation should be supported by penalties for those police officers who may adopt the technique. Further, it should be made mandatory that all interrogations must be carried out on camera. Notably, the use of this approach will reduce the likelihood that some police officers may adopt deception in their interrogations. A legal change in this case will be the best development towards ensuring that all interrogations can be carried out on camera.

References

Bang, B. L., Stanton, D., Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. K. (2018). Police recording of custodial interrogations: A state-by-state legal inquiry.International Journal of Police Science & Management,20(1), 3-18.

David, G. C., & Trainum, J. (2019). Disbelief Repeats as Deception Tagging: Conversational Strategies for Labeling Perceived Deception in Interrogation.The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication, 707-726.

Havens, J. (2021). The Ethics of Interrogation: How Unethical Interrogations Lead to False Confessions and What It Means for the Criminal.

Margareth, E., & Mcadams (2021).Police Deception in Interrogation as a Problem of Procedural Police Deception in Interrogation as a Problem of Procedural Legitimacy Legitimacy. University of Chicago Law School. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=14229&context=journal_articles

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The legal and ethical issue of deception in interrogation poses significant challenges to the crimin... View the full answer