Interviewing and Interrogation

Abstract

The research paper is designed to cater various aspects of investigating process. it extricates the concept of interviewing and interrogating in the context of US law. It discusses the significant difference between the terms interviews and interrogations by highlighting the difference in natures of the two processes and by embracing the different aspects of interviewing and interrogating techniques to unveil prevaricated responses of the guilty suspect. Moreover, the research paper discusses Miranda warning as a base case to demonstrate how the constitutional limitations obligate law enforcing investigation personnel to abandon coercive interrogation techniques. Further, it elucidates the concept of cognitive interviews, forensic assessment techniques as well as polygraph testing. Further the research paper lightens constitutional obligations to conduct effective and socially accepted interviews and interrogations.

Interviewing and Interrogation

Introduction

In the context of law, interviewing and interrogating are essential parts of criminal investigation. Investigators frequently conduct interviews of suspects, witnesses as well as victims to gather information about the criminal activity and on the basis of this information they interrogate suspects further to assemble proofs in order to detect the truth. Investigators often use different interviewing and interrogating techniques like statement analysis, cognitive interviews, forensic interviews, polygraph testing and other truth detecting techniques. Constitutional limitations are attached to Interviews and interrogation in the US culture. Therefore, investigation techniques are supposed to be vigilantly structured to make them ethically and legally acceptable. Law enforcement training institutes provide investigators with advance interviewing and interrogating strategies. Interviewing and interrogating both the term refers to the same process that is investigation. Law enforcement agencies conduct interviews and interrogation in order to unveil the true story of the crime situation which is to be investigated. There are different interviewing and interrogating techniques used by the law enforcing officials depending on the nature of the subject. Some cases require basic investigation and for some cases such as military cases require highly structured coercive strategies. While at the same time, certain subjects have relatively high sensitivities to apply coercive techniques. Different training programs arranged by law enforcing agencies burnishes the interviewing and interrogating skills of investigators. Meanwhile, training programs embraces advanced interviewing and interrogating strategies to efficiently demonstrate whether the suspect is trustworthy or deceptive.

Discussion

The basic distinction between the interview and the interrogation is accusation. Interviews are non accusatory while interrogations are accusatory. By using non accusatory tone during the interview, the investigator would be able to maintain a rapport with suspect. Relationship building with the suspect up to some extend is crucial. Investigators are supposed to stay neutral throughout the interview in order to gain the factual information by inspecting suspect's behavioral rejoinders. The environment under which investigator interviews the suspect is of crucial importance. Ideally, it should be a specifically designed room. However, it can be conducted at various less formal environments depend on the convenience of asking questions. Since, the intention of an interview is to provide all the relevant information. Therefore, it should be conducted early during the process ...