Police Pressure And Police Coercion
Police Pressure and Police Coercion
Interrogation is described as the process through which an interrogator induces a person being interrogated into providing statements against his or her own best interest. Police interrogators main aim is to obtain confessions from suspected criminals. In achieving this goal the police have in instances used pressure and coercion while interrogating suspected criminals. It is often difficult to get a confession even from a guilty suspect which makes the goals of an interrogation more difficult. It is in this line that makes the interrogation process deemed coercive. According to the United States constitution, police interrogators have been disallowed to use physical force although police pressure such …show more content…
as psychological persuasion has been permissible.
Police pressure during an interrogation involves pressuring the suspect into confessing whereby the police claim to having evidence which indicate the suspected criminal is guilty.
For example the police could claim to have eye witnesses, finger prints or DNA, and or accomplices who are pointing fingers at the suspect. The information used while pressuring the suspected criminal to confess may be true or not. The benefits of a confession to a suspect can only be implied but cannot be guaranteed.
Coercion on the other hand involves threats or infliction of pain, torture or physical violence upon a suspect in order to obtain a confession. Police may also threaten to arrest family members of a suspect who fails to confess. A suspect may also be deprived off basic needs such as sleep, food and even shelter. Use of threats, physical violence and deprivation of basic needs may make a suspect to confess which is against the Miranda rights. Importantly psychological coercion is prohibited but officers are allowed to apply moral and psychological pressure (Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, …show more content…
305).
Debate continues to range where innocent people have been coerced into confessions only later to be exonerated from the crimes. Police have resulted into trickery tactics which have resulted into miscarriages of justice as a result of false confessions. Notable cases include those of John Kogut, suspects in the central Park Jogger cases, and Marty Tankleff (The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(6), 9-22). On the other hand, interrogations devoid of any treachery would not solve any crime since suspects would never volunteer information through a straight forward conversation. David Simon notes that without a detective manipulation of a suspect mind, many guilty people would go scot free (Simon, 1991).
Police pressure has been useful in obtaining confessions from criminals. Televisions shows and movies on crime have always utilised interrogations in solving crimes. An example is the Criminal Minds television series where the police use trickery in their bid to uncover a serial killer who leaves clues on the whereabouts of his last victim. In this series, FBI agent Jim Clemente demonstrates the use of non-violent interrogation techniques on a hard criminal who had failed to confess over weeks of violent investigations. The FBI agent is able to trick the suspect in confessing in less than 48 hours in a ticking bomb scenario.
Due to the difficult task in making someone confess to a crime, it is therefore important for police expertise to use psychological manipulation.
It should be noted that in many cases it 's only the guilty who confesses. Use of trickery and deception exposes human weaknesses. The stress levels arising from psychological manipulation due to dominance, control and dependence by the police end up making even the hardened criminal to confess (Blandon, Sperry & Leo, 2010). As such the deception of maximizing and minimizing the consequences of the crime committed and in cases shifting blame on others provide a leeway for suspects to confess. The interrogator therefore requires having the right combinations of circumstances or consequences pertaining to the suspects’ experiences and
personality.
References
The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(6), 9-22
Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 305
Blandon-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2010). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime, and Law. Retrieved on August 13, 2014 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1420206
David Simon, Homicide: A Year on The Killing Streets 211-12 (1991).
Interrogation is described as the process through which an interrogator induces a person being interrogated into providing statements against his or her own best interest. Police interrogators main aim is to obtain confessions from suspected criminals. In achieving this goal the police have in instances used pressure and coercion while interrogating suspected criminals. It is often difficult to get a confession even from a guilty suspect which makes the goals of an interrogation more difficult. It is in this line that makes the interrogation process deemed coercive. According to the United States constitution, police interrogators have been disallowed to use physical force although police pressure such …show more content…
as psychological persuasion has been permissible.
Police pressure during an interrogation involves pressuring the suspect into confessing whereby the police claim to having evidence which indicate the suspected criminal is guilty.
For example the police could claim to have eye witnesses, finger prints or DNA, and or accomplices who are pointing fingers at the suspect. The information used while pressuring the suspected criminal to confess may be true or not. The benefits of a confession to a suspect can only be implied but cannot be guaranteed.
Coercion on the other hand involves threats or infliction of pain, torture or physical violence upon a suspect in order to obtain a confession. Police may also threaten to arrest family members of a suspect who fails to confess. A suspect may also be deprived off basic needs such as sleep, food and even shelter. Use of threats, physical violence and deprivation of basic needs may make a suspect to confess which is against the Miranda rights. Importantly psychological coercion is prohibited but officers are allowed to apply moral and psychological pressure (Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, …show more content…
305).
Debate continues to range where innocent people have been coerced into confessions only later to be exonerated from the crimes. Police have resulted into trickery tactics which have resulted into miscarriages of justice as a result of false confessions. Notable cases include those of John Kogut, suspects in the central Park Jogger cases, and Marty Tankleff (The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(6), 9-22). On the other hand, interrogations devoid of any treachery would not solve any crime since suspects would never volunteer information through a straight forward conversation. David Simon notes that without a detective manipulation of a suspect mind, many guilty people would go scot free (Simon, 1991).
Police pressure has been useful in obtaining confessions from criminals. Televisions shows and movies on crime have always utilised interrogations in solving crimes. An example is the Criminal Minds television series where the police use trickery in their bid to uncover a serial killer who leaves clues on the whereabouts of his last victim. In this series, FBI agent Jim Clemente demonstrates the use of non-violent interrogation techniques on a hard criminal who had failed to confess over weeks of violent investigations. The FBI agent is able to trick the suspect in confessing in less than 48 hours in a ticking bomb scenario.
Due to the difficult task in making someone confess to a crime, it is therefore important for police expertise to use psychological manipulation.
It should be noted that in many cases it 's only the guilty who confesses. Use of trickery and deception exposes human weaknesses. The stress levels arising from psychological manipulation due to dominance, control and dependence by the police end up making even the hardened criminal to confess (Blandon, Sperry & Leo, 2010). As such the deception of maximizing and minimizing the consequences of the crime committed and in cases shifting blame on others provide a leeway for suspects to confess. The interrogator therefore requires having the right combinations of circumstances or consequences pertaining to the suspects’ experiences and
personality.
References
The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(6), 9-22
Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 305
Blandon-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2010). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime, and Law. Retrieved on August 13, 2014 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1420206
David Simon, Homicide: A Year on The Killing Streets 211-12 (1991).