Interrogation

Interrogation is interviewing as commonly employed by law enforcement officers, military personnel, intelligence agencies, organised crime syndicates, and terrorist organisations with the goal of eliciting useful information, particularly information related to suspected crime.

Interview techniques

Interview techniques can be broken down into six key approaches: rapport, collaboration, emotion provocation, context manipulation, confrontation, and presentation of evidence.

  1. Rapport-based interview techniques focus on building a working relationship and mutual understanding between the investigator and subject, enabling better communication.
  2. Collaboration aims to make the subject feel like their communication is valued during the interview process. These strategies might include incentives for subjects who provide information.
  3. Emotion provocation techniques use verbal tactics that play on a subject’s emotions, such as fear, guilt, love, pride, hope, or sadness. This approach aims to influence the subject’s perception of the event to increase cooperation.
  4. Context manipulation refers to the altering of contextual interview factors, such as the physical space or the appearance of the investigator, to set the "tone" for the interaction and subtly influence the subject.
  5. Confrontation-based methods are typically used with people whose culpability is already indicated based on existing evidence. In this case, the investigator needs to obtain specific pieces of information, so the questions tend to be more direct and authoritative.
  6. Evidence presentation interview techniques include the various subtle and strategic ways that an investigator can reveal certain pieces of evidence (real or fake) in a way that helps elicit a confession or collect more information.

Sensemaking is the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences. For investigators, one way of illustrating this concept is the Cylinder Model, which posits that communication is more successful when the investigator aligns their frame of communication with the subject. The cylinder model characterises three orientations people have towards interactions, which

Within each orientation, there are three motivational frames. These are:

Further, people can exhibit different intensities when communicating. Someone showing a high degree of intensity (e.g., shouting demands) will not be able to move to a different frame of communication until that intensity has been reduced. The Cylinder Model interview technique has been found to be effective in increasing cooperation and rapport, though it can be complicated to understand and implement.

Emotion provocation interview techniques use psychological manipulation to evoke strong emotions (negative or positive) from the subject, manipulating their perception of the crime and ideally compelling them to confess. One set of techniques associated with emotion provocation is maximisation and minimisation. Maximisation and minimisation strategies are used to convince a subject that it is in their best interest to confess.

Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) seeks to elicit an open-ended narrative from the subject and then strategically disclose evidence to confront the subject and challenge their narrative. SUE has been found to be effective in detecting deception as well as eliciting confessions. In fact, even being aware that possible evidence could be presented increases the extent to which guilty subjects confess.

In the Scharff technique, the investigator demonstrates knowledge of the case and then subtly elicits additional information using five tactics: a friendly approach, not pressing for information, creating an 'illusion of knowing it all', using confirmations, and ignoring new information that is brought up. Because this technique discourages coercive strategies, sometimes the Scharff technique is referred to as a "friendly" interrogation method.

This approach can be helpful with resistant subjects. Resistant subjects often will try to estimate what the investigator already knows, which should inform what information the investigator withholds or reveals. When people are asked very explicit questions, as with some other interview techniques, it can lead the subject to believe that the interview knows very little about the situation. However, in the Scharff technique, the investigator is seen as more knowledgeable and strategically reveals information to steer the subject toward previously unknown information.

Reid technique

The Reid technique is a method of interrogation. The system was developed in the United States by John E. Reid in the 1950s. Reid was a polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer. The technique is known for creating a high pressure environment for the interviewee, followed by sympathy and offers of understanding and help, but only if a confession is forthcoming. Since its spread in the 1970s, it has been widely utilised by police departments in the United States. Proponents of the Reid technique say it is useful in extracting information from otherwise unwilling suspects.

Critics say the technique results in an unacceptably high rate of false confessions, especially from juveniles and the mentally impaired. Criticism has also been leveled in the opposite case—that against strong-willed interviewees, the technique causes them to stop talking and give no information whatsoever, rather than elicit lies that can be checked against for the guilty or exonerating details for the innocent.

The Reid technique consists of a three-phase process beginning with fact analysis, followed by the behavior analysis interview (a non-accusatory interview designed to develop investigative and behavioral information), followed when appropriate by the Reid nine steps of interrogation. According to process guidelines, individuals should be interrogated only when the information developed from the interview and investigation indicate that the subject is involved in the commission of the crime.

The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:

  1. Positive confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
  2. Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
  3. Try to minimise the frequency of suspect denials.
  4. At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the acknowledgement of what they did.
  5. Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
  6. The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme of the discussion toward offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
  7. Pose the "alternative question", giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
  8. Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
  9. Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

Critics claim the technique too easily produces false confessions, especially with juveniles, with second-language speakers in their non-native language, and with people whose communication/language abilities are affected by mental disabilities, including reduced intellectual capacity. While this criticism acknowledges that the technique can be "effective" in producing confessions, it is not accurate at getting guilty parties to confess, instead sweeping up people pushed to their mental limits by stress.

PEACE method

The PEACE method of investigative interviewing is a five stage process in which investigators try to build rapport and allow a criminal suspect to provide their account of events uninterrupted, before presenting the suspect with any evidence of inconsistencies or contradictions. It is used to obtain a full account of events from a suspect rather than just seeking a confession - which is the goal of the Reid technique, in which interrogators are more aggressive, accusatory, and threatening in terms of proposing consequences for the suspect's failure to confess to the crime.

The PEACE method, which "encourages more of a dialogue between investigator and suspect" was developed in Britain in response to the realisation that psychologically coercive techniques often led to false confessions. In 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police adopted a new standard influenced by the PEACE model. Sergeant Darren Carr, who trains police with the new approach, described it as "less Kojak and more Dr. Phil". There is some resistance to adopting the PEACE model in Canada. This approach avoids the use of deceptive information to overwhelm suspects. It emphasises information gathering over eliciting confessions and discourages investigators from presuming a suspect's guilt.

Five stages of the PEACE method:

  1. Planning and preparation: This requires investigators to find out as much as they can about the incident under investigation, including who needs to be interviewed and why.
  2. Engage and Explain: The purpose of this stage is to establish rapport and is described in the literature as the most influential aspect in whether or not an interview is successful. It involves showing concern for the subject's welfare by asking how they want to be addressed, how much time they've got available to be interviewed and giving reassurance if the person seems anxious or nervous.
  3. Account — Clarification and challenge: This stage is where interviewer attempts to obtain a full account of events from the subject without interrupting. Once the subject has explained what happened, the interviewer can ask follow up questions which allow them to expand and clarify their account of events. If necessary this may involve challenging aspects of the interviewee's story if contradictory information is available.
  4. Closure: This stage involves summarising the subject's account of what happened and is designed to ensure there is mutual understanding between interviewer and interviewee about what has taken place. It also involves verifying that everything that needs to be discussed has been covered.
  5. Evaluation: This stage requires the interviewer to examine whether they achieved what they wanted from the interview; to review the status of the investigation in the light of any new information that was received; and to reflect upon how well the interview went and what, if anything, could have been done differently.

How well the PEACE method works appears to depend primarily on how well trained the interviewers are. In a study published in the British Psychological Society related to benefit fraud, 63% of (non-police) interviewers who displayed an acceptable level of competence in their interviewing ability obtained comprehensive accounts or full confessions from subjects. Even when subjects denied any offending, these interviewers still obtained a comprehensive account of what happened. This reaffirmed the importance of eliciting and fully testing the suspects’ accounts of events. In the same study, 92% of interviewers who did not display competence in their interviewing technique failed to obtain a comprehensive account of events or a confession from their subjects.

Polygraph

A polygraph, often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test, is a junk science device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions. The belief underpinning the use of the polygraph is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers; however, there are no specific physiological reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate those who are lying from those who are telling the truth.

“There is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing. Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance, significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.”.

Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1983.

In some countries, polygraphs are used as an interrogation tool with criminal suspects or candidates for sensitive public or private sector employment. US law enforcement and federal government agencies such as the FBI, DEA, CIA, NSA, and many police departments such as the LAPD and the Virginia State Police use polygraph examinations to interrogate suspects and screen new employees. Within the U.S. federal government, a polygraph examination is also referred to as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) examination. The average cost to administer the test in the United States is more than $700 and is part of a $2 billion industry.

“We discovered there were some Eastern Europeans who could defeat the polygraph at any time. Americans are not very good at it, because we are raised to tell the truth and when we lie it is easy to tell we are lying. But we find a lot of Europeans and Asiatics can handle that polygraph without a blip, and you know they are lying and you have evidence that they are lying.”.

Richard Helms, 8th Director of Central Intelligence, 1978.

Assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.". The American Psychological Association states that "most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.".

The control question test, also known as the probable lie test, was developed to overcome or mitigate the problems with the relevant-irrelevant testing method. Although the relevant questions in the probable lie test are used to obtain a reaction from people who are lying, the physiological reactions that distinguish lies may also occur in innocent individuals who fear false detection or feel passionately that they did not commit a crime. Therefore, although a physiological reaction may be occurring, the reasoning behind the response may be different. Further examination of the probable lie test has indicated that it is biased against innocent subjects. Those who are unable to think of a lie related to the relevant question will automatically fail the test.

Several proposed countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests have been described. There are two major types of countermeasures: "general state" (intending to alter the physiological or psychological state of the subject during the test), and "specific point" (intending to alter the physiological or psychological state of the subject at specific periods during the examination, either to increase or decrease responses during critical examination periods).

Polygraphy has been faulted for failing to trap known spies such as double-agent Aldrich Ames, who passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union. Ames failed several tests while at the CIA that were never acted on. Other spies who passed the polygraph include Karl Koecher, Ana Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo. CIA spy Harold James Nicholson failed his polygraph examinations, which aroused suspicions that led to his eventual arrest. Polygraph examination and background checks failed to detect Nada Nadim Prouty, who was not a spy but was convicted for improperly obtaining US citizenship and using it to obtain a restricted position at the FBI.

U.S. Army approaches

These listed approaches are taken from the U.S. Army Field Manual, FM 34-52, Appendix H: Approaches, May 8, 1987.

The FUTILITY TECHNIQUE APPROACH is used to make the source believe that it is useless to resist and to persuade him to cooperate with the interrogator. The futility approach is most effective when the interrogator can play on doubts that already exist in the source's mind. . . . There is the futility of . . . "you are not finished here until you answer the questions," futility in that "everyone talks sooner or later.".

The "WE KNOW ALL" APPROACH convinces the source that we already know everything. . . . When the source begins to give accurate and complete information to the questions to which the interrogator has the answers, the interrogator begins interjecting questions for which he does not have the answers.

The FILE AND DOSSIER APPROACH is when the interrogator prepares a dossier containing all available information . . . . Careful arrangement of the material . . . may give the illusion that it contains more data than what is actually there. . . . The interrogator may read a few selected bits of known data to further impress the source. . . . The success of this technique is largely dependent on the naivete of the source, the volume of data . . . and the skill of the interrogator in convincing the source.

The DECREASED FEAR DOWN APPROACH . . . is really nothing more than calming the source and convincing him that he will be properly and humanely treated. . . . When used with a soothing, calm tone of voice, this often creates rapport and usually nothing else is needed to get the source to cooperate. . . . as the source will readily respond to kindness.

The "MUTT AND JEFF" ("FRIEND AND FOE") APPROACH involves a psychological ploy . . . [in which] two experienced interrogators who are convincing actors . . . display opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source. . . . The first interrogator . . . displays an unsympathetic attitude. . . . At the time the source acts hopeless . . . the second interrogator appears . . . to show a sympathetic attitude . . . in an effort to increase the rapport and control the questioning. . . . When used against the proper source, this trick will normally gain . . complete cooperation.

Five techniques

The five techniques, also known as deep interrogation, are a group of interrogation methods developed by the United Kingdom during the 20th century and are currently regarded as a form of torture. Originally developed by British forces in a variety of 20th-century conflicts, they are most notable for being applied to detainees in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The five collective methods are prolonged wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, and deprivation of food and drink.

On 9 August 1971, the British Army, under the cover of darkness, swamped nationalist communities, detaining 342 people in what they had named Operation Demetrius.

They were first used in Northern Ireland in 1971 as part of Operation Demetrius – the mass arrest and internment of people suspected of involvement with the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). Out of those arrested, fourteen were subjected to a programme of "deep interrogation" using the five techniques. This took place at Shackleton Barracks, a secret interrogation centre in Northern Ireland. For seven days, when not being interrogated, the detainees were kept hooded and handcuffed in a cold cell and subjected to a continuous loud hissing noise. Here they were forced to stand in a stress position for many hours and were deprived of sleep, food, and drink.

Colm O'Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, (front right) with a number of the surviving 'Hooded Men' (front row from left) Michael Donnelly, and Liam Shannon, (middle row from left) Kevin Hannaway, Gerry McKerr, and Jim Auld.

They were also repeatedly beaten, and some reported being kicked in the genitals, having their heads banged against walls, and being threatened with injections. The effect was prolonged pain, physical and mental exhaustion, severe anxiety, depression, hallucinations, disorientation, and repeated loss of consciousness. It also resulted in long-term psychological trauma. The fourteen became known as "the Hooded Men" and were the only detainees in Northern Ireland subjected to all five techniques together. Other detainees were subjected to at least one of the five techniques along with other interrogation methods.

“Considered the combined use of the five methods to amount to torture, on the grounds that (1) the intensity of the stress caused by techniques creating sensory deprivation "directly affects the personality physically and mentally"; and (2) "the systematic application of the techniques for the purpose of inducing a person to give information shows a clear resemblance to those methods of systematic torture which have been known over the ages... a modern system of torture falling into the same category as those systems... applied in previous times as a means of obtaining information and confessions”.

European Commission on Human Rights, 1976.

In 1976, the European Commission of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques amounted to torture. The case was then referred to the European Court of Human Rights. In 1978, the court ruled that the techniques were "inhuman and degrading" and breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights but did not amount to torture. In 2014, after new information was uncovered that showed the decision to use the five techniques in Northern Ireland in 1971–1972 had been taken by ministers, the Irish Government asked the European Court of Human Rights to review its judgement. In 2018, the Court declined.

“[The] Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques ... will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation... The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances.”.

Prime Minister Edward Heath, House of Commons, 2nd March 1972.

The Court's ruling that the five techniques did not amount to torture was later internally cited by the United States to justify its own interrogation methods, which included the five techniques. British agents also taught the five techniques to the forces of Brazil's military dictatorship. During the Iraq War, the illegal use of the five techniques by British service members contributed to the death of Baha Mousa. In 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found that the use of the five techniques amounts to torture.