action is sensible). He concluded that the following
techniques were very commonly used:- Undermining suspects’ confidence in their denial
of guilt - Offering justifications for their behavior
- Confronting suspects with fabricated evidence of
their guilt
Some of the findings of this ground-breaking 1996
study were taken by others (along with their own read-
ing of relevant guidance publications) to indicate that
(a) police interviewing of suspects was a confronta-
tional and accusatory process that purposely involved
the application of considerable psychological pressure
and (b) some of the recommended Phase 2 steps
raised ethical questions (e.g., the discouraging/
preventing of denials).
In the United Kingdom, a similar, if smaller, 1980
observational study found that among the tactics used
were the following:- Pointing out the futility of denial
- Minimizing the seriousness of the offense
- Manipulating the suspect’s self-esteem
- Pretending that the police were in possession of more
evidence than was, in fact, the case
In light of (a) this research finding, (b) some
courts’ decisions and judges’ comments regarding
inappropriate tactics and procedures being used, and
(c) considerable media concern about the police inter-
viewing of suspects, the government in England and
Wales brought in legislation that from 1986 sought to
discourage the use of unduly oppressive interviewing
tactics (which could result in a confession not being
deemed “voluntary”) and required that all interviews
with suspects be fully recorded (e.g., on audiotape).
Around this time, police forces in England and
Wales were also becoming aware of research on
detecting deception (some conducted by officers them-
selves, usually as part of their university studies) that
was making it ever clearer that generally applicable,
valid behavioral cues to deception are unlikely to exist.
The audiotaping of interviews with suspects (rou-
tine since 1986) set the scene for a series of studies
conducted in the late 1980s to analyze these. Such
studies found that while few interviews were now
unduly oppressive, the extent and level of interview-
ing skill was not high. For example, a common tacticwas to inform suspects (truthfully) at the outset of the
evidence against them. If such evidence was strong,
many such suspects confessed. However, if the evi-
dence was weak or moderate, many suspects did not
readily confess when informed of the evidence against
them. Analyses of the tape recordings revealed that
when confessions did not occur in these situations,
many police officers seemed not to know what to do
next. (They would have been fully aware that the rel-
evant legislation precluded undue pressure.) The pri-
mary tactic of revealing the evidence bears similarity
to the first phase of the two-phase approach advocated
in the United States (and many other countries).
However, if this did not work, many British police
officers seemed unaware of what could be done in
Phase 2.Reform of Techniques
As soon as the research analyzing the tapes revealed
this problem, the Association of Chief Police Officers,
with support from the government, set up a working
party to design new training and philosophy regard-
ing the interviewing of suspects. This working party
based their recommendations (which were adopted)
on the fundamental realization that there are many
essential similarities between the effective interview-
ing of suspects and the effective interviewing of
witnesses/victims. For example, both need to be
designed to encourage the interviewee to talk on rel-
evant topics using methods prescribed by the law and
various conventions on human rights. Thus, from
1992 on, all police officers in England and Wales had
to undergo new training programs (the extent of
which was determined by their job role) in what was
termed investigative interviewing. The emphasis
now was on “skills,” in particular skills relevant to
(a) encouraging interviewees to provide accounts
(including those that could corroborate a confession
provided early in the interview) and (b) strategically
(in a planned/prepared way) disclosing evidence
(piece by piece) at appropriate points in the interview
that would encourage the interviewee to provide
more information and demonstrate to the interviewee
that what he or she has said (or failed to confirm)
contradicts the evidence.
Only a limited number of (relatively large) studies
have been conducted/published that have analyzed
interviews conducted by police officers who have
received this new form of training. Among the major380 ———Interrogation of SuspectsI-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 380