Coerced Confessions 27released. All officers using coercive methods stated that they felt nothing could be
lost by using coercive methods with these subjects, since they were treated essentially
as informants or witnesses.
DiPietro (1993) describes a number of factors related to interrogation of sub-
jects. He states that officers should assess the suspect's background and personal
characteristics such as age, race, intelligence, and educational level before beginning
interrogation. Certain subjects may be more conducive to coercive techniques, thus
rendering a subsequent confession inadmissible if such techniques are used. Further,
DiPietro states that some types of deceptive techniques are appropriate, given that
they are not openly coercive, but that officers must not trick a subject into waiv-
ing their Miranda rights. He then gives a two-part definition of deception: (1) lies
that relate to a suspect's connection to the crime and (2) trickery that introduces
extrinsic considerations.
The same article describes a number of interrogation techniques which may, by
some definitions, be considered coercive. The first of these are lies that connect the
suspect to the crime. These include telling the subject that fingerprints were found
at the crime scene when in fact they were not. Also, trickery that falsely introduces
extrinsic evidence may also be considered coercive. This may include telling a
subject that they will lose their welfare benefits if they are found guilty, but that
leniency will be granted for cooperation. Another potentially coercive method is
the effect of promises on voluntariness. This is a technique used in which an officer
promises some sort of benefit to the subject in return for cooperation. Promises
of leniency are also used in the facilitation of confessions, as are promises to tell
higher authorities (such as the courts) that cooperation was given. Conceivably,
a cooperative subject may be told that he or she will be regarded less harshly if
cooperation is given.
Promises of collateral benefits such as the release of a family member or treatment
for the subject's substance abuse problem are also given. More specifically, the courts
have found that promises to protect the accused, promises to protect the accused's
family, and promises not to arrest the defendant are considered to be coercive.
Finally, threats may be viewed as inherently coercive and are therefore not allowed
in the interrogation process.
While the discussion thus far has focused mainly on coercive interviewing tech-
niques, good interviewing techniques do exist and are encouraged in virtually all
interrogation situations. Hess and Gladis (1987) describe a variety of good inter-
rogation techniques which they liken to successful advertising in marketing. These
techniques include such principles as the establishment of credibility, a feeling of
reciprocity, giving of compliments, conveying a sense of urgency, and casting doubts
on current beliefs. These techniques, according to the authors, help the interroga-
tor to establish a quick rapport with the subject and obtain information in a quick
and easy fashion rather than resorting to coercive methods. It is hoped that dis-
cussing these principles will "demystify" the interrogation process and result in
more efficient interrogations.