Psychology : How to Get a Confession - Research Paper Example

The Criminal Law Revision Committee defines confession as “any statement wholly or partially adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise” (as cited by Keane, p. 363). In other words, confessions are not favorable to the confessor and may incriminate him and/or his family or associates involved wholly or partially in his wrongdoing. This paper will cover the topic: how to get a person to confess wrongdoing – be it in a personal or professional situation – (mostly in the business or law enforcement sector).

This study shall cover techniques which cover psychological strategies, including out-of-box tactics for gaining such confessions. This research will not discuss the uncovering of a person’s deceit, but on how to get a person to admit to his actions once his guilt has been established. Practical and reasonable techniques which can be used on real-life situations will be discussed. This paper is being carried out in order to establish a clear and logical understanding of the subject matter including its necessary elements.

There are various types of interrogations where confessions are often eventually drawn. One of these techniques is the Reid technique. This technique has been discussed and described by Inbau, Reid and Buckley (p. 36) and in this technique the authors assume that criminal investigations can only be resolved by gaining confessions. These authors also claim (p. 36) that, unless criminals are apprehended while committing a crime, they will not confess to its commission until they are interrogated for a prolonged period of time via tricky and deceitful techniques, as well as psychological maneuvering.

Moreover, to get through the criminal’s resistance, interrogators have to use techniques which may sometimes be viewed as unethical (Gudjonsson, p. 11). The Reid technique includes the following elements: breaking through denials and resistance; and increasing a suspect’s longing to confess (Gudjonsson, p. 11). Under this technique, prior to the actual interrogation process, suspects are usually interviewed in an informal, non-custodial setting where they are not usually informed of their rights.

This non-accusatory setting would help the interviewer build rapport with the suspect and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security; this informal process also helps the investigator gather information which can later be used to break the suspect’s defenses during the actual interrogation process (Perillo and Kassin, p. 1). After gaining these objectives during the informal interrogation setting, the formal interrogation process is commenced (Gudjonsson, p. 11). It is best to utilize the same interrogator for the informal and the formal interrogation process.

During the interview, a polygraph exam can also be carried out on the suspect and if the results are not favorable to the suspect, such results can be used to confront the suspect with his lies; eventually, this can effectively elicit confessions from the suspects (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, p. 15). The correct interrogation technique in each given case is often largely based on the personality of the suspected criminal, as well as the kind of crime he or she is being accused of; in most cases, the motive for the crime and the suspect’s initial reaction to the interrogation can also impact on the kind of technique which can best be applied to each case (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, p. 12). Suspects can also be classified into either the emotional or the non-emotional categories and their qualities as suspects require much adjustment on the part of the interrogator.

Factoring in these elements can impact