Should the police use deceit in interrogations - Essay Example

endment provides a person with the right not to confess anything against one’s own will, there are bunches of strong psychological techniques that help police to extract the confessions they need from their suspects, making a suspect confused in whether his confession is his own or has come against his actual will (Najdowski & Bonventre 26). Hence, police workers often use multiple tricks and deceptive methods during interrogations of their suspects. The use of deceit during interrogations may be implemented in multiple forms.

Policemen often speculate with false evidences and assert that they have something on the suspect, for instance, that they’ve found fingerprints of personal stuff of the suspect on the crime scene, or that they’ve got some witnesses who saw the suspect making the crime, when in fact they’ve got nothing on the person. Such kind of method of interrogation is not only unethical but may lead to a case going in the wrong path of investigation. First of all, application of tricks and different deceptive psychological techniques during the interrogation process can make a suspect to confess in a crime one hasn’t done.

Some studies on the matter mark out two kinds of false confessions result from a suspect’s entanglement in the current state of affairs of a case. The “coerced-compliant” (Conti 22) confession is the confession when a suspect is stressed and terrified by the police’s psychological oppression and agrees to confess in order to get rid of the stress he’s got into. Thus a person might be aware of the fact that he hasn’t done anything wrong but thinking of the police having something on him makes one desperate, so he starts considering confession, as it may probably shorten his sentence.

Moreover, police often offers some deals of protection in court, so the suspect decides that if anyway he’s going to be sentenced, then why not to get at least a smaller sentence. The second type of false confessions is called