The Strategic Use of Evidence Assist in the Detection of Deception - Essay Example

The Strategic Use of Evidence Assist in the Detection of Deception Name Institution Date How Does The Strategic Use Of Evidence Assist In The Detection Of Deception? Years of research on deception have indicated that human beings are not any better than chance when it comes to detection of deception. The research has revealed that there are minimal objective signs of deception. However, there is a possibility of creating deception cues by the utility of strategic interviewing techniques. There has been an influx of deception research majoring on how interviews can be conducted on suspects to elicit signs of either truth or deception (Blandon-Glitlin et al., 2014). The strategic use of evidence, otherwise known as SUE, has forged the way to this new crop of research. Therefore, this paper discusses how SUE assists deception’s detection. Lying and truth-telling individuals enter the interrogation room in different states of mind (Granhag & Hartwig, 2014). The perpetrator of a crime will usually possess unique knowledge of the events of the crime, which if realized by the one interviewing, it would be apparent that he committed the crime. Therefore, the main ambition of such an individual would be to deny the interviewer that information. A suspect, who is not guilty, has the exact opposite feeling: that the interviewer may not believe their side of the story. These differing states of mind elicit different strategies for truth tellers, as well as liars. Suspects, who are not innocent, largely resort to avoidance and denial strategies, while innocent ones prefer forthcoming strategies. The SUE technique is premised upon the assumption that liars and honest individuals so always utilize various tactics of counter-interrogation (Hartwig, 2006). As such, during interrogation, evidence, which does not favour the suspect, is always employed to evaluate the afore-said strategies variations. Particularly, theoretical perceptions surrounding the psychology of innocence and guilt calculate that guilty individuals will use avoidance strategies during interrogation when it comes to information that is self-incriminating. Innocent suspects on the other hand tend to employ cooperative strategies (Granhag et al., 2013). A good example is that while innocent suspects may offer to visit a crime scene, guilty ones would normally prefer to avoid this and deny or omit information that tends to this regard. Summarily therefore, guilty suspects normally avoid to mention self-incriminatory evidence and refuse to admit any such evidence in their possession more than innocent suspects. The above assumptions are supported by a huge weight of empirical data (Granhag, 2008). Therefore, the Strategic Use of Evidence technique invokes discernible differences between innocent and guilty suspects and this is usually to the extent of the consistency or otherwise, of the evidence seized by the interviewer. In using the SUE method to detect deception, a number of pre-interview considerations must be met (Leins, 2014). Among these considerations, include assessing the available evidence, as well as making strategic reflections regarding the intended questions, as well as the possible evidence disclosure. Conversely, the technique has two main phases (Levine, 2014). During the first phase, the suspects are encouraged to tell their story. The aim of the first phase is to open the suspects up for avoidance. The second phase involves searching for vital information by probing specific and open questions. The purpose of this is to open the suspects up for denials. A serial variety of empirical studies reveal that by following the basic SUE technique steps, one is able to bring out diagnostic indications of deception in the form of discrepancies between the evidence and the suspect’ statement (Sooniste, et al., 2013). This means that suspects who are innocent adopt a strategy of telling the story “as it is”, thus remaining consistent with the evidence on record. Guilty suspects on the other hand, tend to avoid information in this line, and especially where there is no information about evidence existing. The strategic use of evidence envisages a technique where interrogators withhold the evidence and in turn ask questions about the evidence (Nahari & Fisher, 2014). This provides a better basis for sound judgment as opposed to presenting the evidence early during the interview. Suspects enter the interrogation interview without knowledge of some or all of the potentially incriminating evidence that the interviewer possesses against them. Hartwig, Granhag, and Kronkvist (2006) empirically tested the SUE technique. The mock trials they conducted revealed that liars tend to withhold information when they are called upon to recall freely as opposed to truth-tellers. In the survey, liars employed a strategy of keeping the story brief and simple while truth-tellers told it as it was. The result was that over long and sustained periods of time, the time difference between the two was quite significant. The SUE technique envisages a system of questioning procedure, which addresses both the potentially incriminating areas and those that are not (Porter & Brinke, 2010). The purpose of this system of questions is to methodically exhaust all the explanations to the information that is potentially self-incriminating. In this technique, when evidence is strategically used during an interview, there will be a significant inconsistency between the guilty suspect’s account and the available evidence on record (Hartwig, et al., 2005). According to Sorochinski (2014), there exist other forms of consistency apart from the statement-evidence consistency. Some of these include the statement of a suspect with that of a partner in crime; the statement of a suspect with his previous statements; and lastly, the statement of a suspect compared with one’s own judgment (Sorochinski, 2014). Granhag and Hartwig (2008) claim that, the SUE method relies on two levels, which include the tactical and strategic levels. The strategic level is more abstract and has been outlined in the foregoing paragraph (general principle underlying the SUE technique). The tactical level in the sue technique envisages evidence tactics, questions tactics and disclosure tactics. A mock trial was conducted in 2013 to test the SUE technique, where the participants were randomly selected to commit an act of terrorism and others a non-criminal act (Sooniste, et al., 2013). The guilty group was informed that they were going to pick up packages that have bomb-assembling resources to be dropped off in a particular location. The innocent group was told to pick a package containing books to be taken to a library. Evidence was generated against both the innocent and the guilty suggesting that they may have been involved in the crime. The second phase of the mock trial envisaged interviews, which were recorded verbatim. The recorded interviews were coded on two levels; firstly, exclusions of relevant information in free recalling. Secondly, it is the inconsistency in statement-evidence at the time of the interview. The results of the first level were that innocent parties volunteered a lot of information when free recalling, which was contrary to individuals who were not innocent (Sooniste, et al., 2013). The results of the second level were that the guilty parties were more prone to contradicting the evidence compared to the innocent ones. The main aim of the study was to determine finest strategy of evidence disclosure of causing deception signals. The question sought to be answered was what role does timing of evidence disclosure play in order to elicit verbal deception cues (i.e. early, gradual or late presentation of evidence during interrogation). At the conclusion of the trial, it was found that strategically withholding evidence until the end of the interrogation elicited the highest verbal cues to deception among liars (Sooniste, et al., 2013). This system produced the largest disparity between truth tellers and liars. While gradual presentation of the evidence proved to be more effective than early presentation, late presentation of the evidence proved to be the most efficient strategy. In brief, based on the foregoing, the timing of evidence disclosure has proven to be a strategic use of evidence that can detect deception. It is worthy to note that evidence disclosure is a multi-faceted matter, which goes beyond the timing’s considerations (Vrij & Granhag, 2012). The manner in which evidence is disclosed for instance can have a significant impact on the cues to deception. Evidence may be presented specifically, generally or vaguely. It may also be agreed that the success of the different strategies of evidence disclosure are largely dependent upon the strength of a particular piece of evidence (Vrij et al., 2011). The stronger the piece of evidence the more effective it will be as a tool of eliciting the cues of deception. In conclusion, the strategic use of evidence, as a technique of detecting deception works on three broad fronts: First, the interrogator must suppress potentially implicating evidence from the accused. Secondly, the interrogator should ask the suspect for a free recall; and thirdly, the interviewer is required to question the person being accused several potentially incriminating evidence surrounding the evidence but avoiding the evidence itself. The SUE technique is premised upon the assumption that liars and honest individuals so always utilize various tactics of counter-interrogation. It envisages a system of questioning procedure, which addresses both the potentially incriminating areas and those that are not. The SUE method relies on two levels, which are the tactical and strategic levels. References Blandón-Gitlin, I., Fenn, E., Masip, J., & Yoo, A. H. (2014). Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: Searching for cognitive mechanisms. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(9), 441-444. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2014). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique, in Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches (eds P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij and B. Verschuere), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118510001.ch10 Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 189-200. Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2013). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 341-355. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. Law and human behavior, 30(5), 603. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and human behavior, 29(4), 469. Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., & Ross, S. J. (2013). Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 141-151. Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT) A Theory of Human Deception and Deception Detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378-392. Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Exploiting liars' verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227-239. Porter, S., & Brinke, L. (2010). The truth about lies: What works in detecting high‐stakes deception?. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 57-75. Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Knieps, M., & Vrij, A. (2013). True and false intentions: Asking about the past to detect lies about the future. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(8), 673-685. Sorochinski, M., Hartwig, M., Osborne, J., Wilkins, E., Marsh, J., Kazakov, D., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). Interviewing to detect deception: when to disclose the evidence?. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 29(2), 87-94. Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110-117. Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 28-32. Read More