Research depicts that any kind of harsh interrogation, physical or mental, can have adverse consequences like obtaining unreliable information. Further, it has been noted that the coarse way of interrogation is absolutely ineffective as it can lead to refusal of cooperation by the suspect. When a harsh approach is adopted in order to acquire information, the memory of the person who is being interrogated can deteriorate; thus, decreasing the accuracy of the information provided by them.
Sometimes, to gain insights into a case, psychological manipulation may also be endorsed. For instance, the interrogator may target the mental state of the suspect by pointing out extreme personal problems which they might face due to their arrest, potentially leading to a false confession. The factors like the death penalty, loss of freedom, loss of loved ones, and work/job and financial losses are used against them to create emotional chaos in their minds, which may make them confess to a crime they might not have committed. The interrogatee may also struggle with probable severe consequences such as the case going up to the court if they do not confess quickly. The personal consequences mentioned above are much more of a big deal in confessing to crimes, as compared to their individual factors like age and ethnic origin; this is because of the gravity which personal issues hold, as it directly targets the self-esteem and integrity of the person.
In a situation like this, what does a person who is getting interrogated do? The decision-making of the person gets complicated as the interrogation affects their mind. Various aspects in the accused’s past or nature of crime have been shown to lead to differing degrees of confessions.
Specifically, studies portray that many convicted people decide to confess their crimes but change their minds after the interrogation process, as they weren’t ready to confess earlier. The convicted people also mentioned how they would have confessed to their crime anyway, before the start of the interrogation process.
The same study also states that when a suspect feels guilt, they are most likely to confess to their crime. It also states that suspects under the age of 21 have a lesser understanding of the rights that they hold, compared to the older suspects. Thus, they tend to confess earlier. Additionally, the pressure invoked during interrogation is too much for young suspects to digest.
Furthermore, having a ‘criminal background’ plays a major role when it comes to interrogation. People who do not have any kind of criminal background are more prone to confess to their crimes (intimidating for them) in comparison to people who have committed crimes (well acquainted with the environment around interrogation) in the past.
In general, the nature of the crime that one is accused of also leads to variation in the process of confession. When a non-violent crime is committed, the probability of confessing to the crime rises. Although, this reduces when a sexual crime is committed because of the negative conception. Basically, the solemnity of the crime results in fewer people confessing to their crime, as a serious crime has heavier consequences.
Likewise, during the course of collecting evidence, the idea of the strength of the evidence helps the suspect to make their decision of confessing to the crime. If the evidence does not seem strong enough (can still get away with it) then they do not intend to confess; however, if it’s solid (they don’t have any choice) then they disclose the information about the crime committed.
There are various aspects that influence the decision-making of the suspect during interrogation and can exploit the truth, leading to a false confession. Sometimes, questioning can lead to the truth as well but, the risk of a false confession is significant, as questioning can be done with an unprofessional attitude, creating a lack of objectivity and unethical behavior on the part of the interrogator. This kind of behavior produces a negative surrounding for the suspects and directs their attitude towards misidentification, incomplete statements, and false information.
The mechanism of questioning can affect both the police and the suspect due to the mental and physical pressure of providing information by torture and mind games. This can cost the police if the suspect gives out the wrong details. If this happens, the police can easily be blamed for insufficient expertise and police misconduct (if the evidence is found regarding any coarse interrogation). If the suspect mentions what happened with them, police can get in trouble too. Hence, the best method that can be adopted instead is the interviewer- interviewee conduct.
It is an easier way that can help the interviewee open up about their perspective. As no force is being implied on them throughout the interrogation process. a communicational arrangement builds a trusting relationship between both sides with active listening, acceptance, and empathy. This mode is a better way to communicate with suspects because they feel heard, recognized, accepted, and not judged for what they might have done.
In our country, due to a lack of knowledge, people still don’t understand the relevance of communication and therapy. Therefore, it is hard to adapt this method in reality. However as the modern mentality and technological advancement (the usage of technological products can help with awareness) amongst people increases, so does the chance of adoption of the interviewer-interviewee method.
Muskaan Kashyap
