by Chip Morgan
Most Law Enforcement Officers rely on confrontational, accusatory methods of interviewing, coupled with an assessment of non-verbal behavior (body language) to elicit admissions and confessions.
Yet, these methods are not successful in a large percentage of cases. The problem seems to be in the outdated methods taught to law enforcement officers at in-service training and academies throughout the country.
Consider the following: - At least 50% of interview methods currently being taught to law enforcement officers are non-productive (Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond). - Law Enforcement Officers score no better than chance (50/50) when asked to evaluate body language for truthfulness or deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan). - Law Enforcement Officers put blind faith in the principles that advocate judging deception by evaluating body language (Gudjonsson). - The published success rates of officers getting admissions or confessions, using a confrontational approach, averages less than 40% (Gudjonsson, Baldwin, Leo).
So why do we continue to use methods and principles that are not very productive (at best) or counter-productive (at worst)?
Why do we put blind faith in our ability to discern truth from deception, when we are shown time after time that we're not that good at it?
Maybe ego, maybe invincibility, maybe self-confidence, maybe we are just plain wrong!
There's another reason we approach interviewing the same old way we've been doing it for 50 years (or more). Primarily because that's what we've been taught in Law Enforcement training academies and during in-service training seminars.
We know from studies conducted by behavioral scientists, coupled with untold work experience of polygraph examiners and law enforcement officials, that there are essentially two primary types of interviews used in law enforcement: - the accusatory (confrontational) approach (which is exemplified by the following "Jack, I know it was you who robbed the store..." and - the narrative (non-confrontational) approach (which is exemplified by the statement "Jack, let's talk about our concerns about this store robbery. I'd like to hear what you have to say about your role in the robbery."
We know from those same studies that the following is true: - The most predominate interview method employed in law enforcement today is the accusatory, (confrontational) method, even though it is the least productive. - The most productive interview method studied is the narrative, subject-driven (non-confrontational) approach.
What we need to do is begin the shift from traditional to useful, from counter-productive to extremely productive.
The icing on the cake is that the narrative approach in law enforcement custodial interviews has the added benefit of being "politically correct" and casts law enforcement authorities in a friendlier, more humanitarian light than traditional, confrontational interviewing.
To effectively make that transition from "old school" interview and interrogation to the "new and improved" approach, we need a system that presents a narrative, non-confrontational approach to interviewing which should also be very easy to use and extremely productive. It should have the added bonus of being "politically correct" when viewed by members of the media and public.
Most Law Enforcement Officers rely on confrontational, accusatory methods of interviewing, coupled with an assessment of non-verbal behavior (body language) to elicit admissions and confessions.
Yet, these methods are not successful in a large percentage of cases. The problem seems to be in the outdated methods taught to law enforcement officers at in-service training and academies throughout the country.
Consider the following: - At least 50% of interview methods currently being taught to law enforcement officers are non-productive (Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond). - Law Enforcement Officers score no better than chance (50/50) when asked to evaluate body language for truthfulness or deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan). - Law Enforcement Officers put blind faith in the principles that advocate judging deception by evaluating body language (Gudjonsson). - The published success rates of officers getting admissions or confessions, using a confrontational approach, averages less than 40% (Gudjonsson, Baldwin, Leo).
So why do we continue to use methods and principles that are not very productive (at best) or counter-productive (at worst)?
Why do we put blind faith in our ability to discern truth from deception, when we are shown time after time that we're not that good at it?
Maybe ego, maybe invincibility, maybe self-confidence, maybe we are just plain wrong!
There's another reason we approach interviewing the same old way we've been doing it for 50 years (or more). Primarily because that's what we've been taught in Law Enforcement training academies and during in-service training seminars.
We know from studies conducted by behavioral scientists, coupled with untold work experience of polygraph examiners and law enforcement officials, that there are essentially two primary types of interviews used in law enforcement: - the accusatory (confrontational) approach (which is exemplified by the following "Jack, I know it was you who robbed the store..." and - the narrative (non-confrontational) approach (which is exemplified by the statement "Jack, let's talk about our concerns about this store robbery. I'd like to hear what you have to say about your role in the robbery."
We know from those same studies that the following is true: - The most predominate interview method employed in law enforcement today is the accusatory, (confrontational) method, even though it is the least productive. - The most productive interview method studied is the narrative, subject-driven (non-confrontational) approach.
What we need to do is begin the shift from traditional to useful, from counter-productive to extremely productive.
The icing on the cake is that the narrative approach in law enforcement custodial interviews has the added benefit of being "politically correct" and casts law enforcement authorities in a friendlier, more humanitarian light than traditional, confrontational interviewing.
To effectively make that transition from "old school" interview and interrogation to the "new and improved" approach, we need a system that presents a narrative, non-confrontational approach to interviewing which should also be very easy to use and extremely productive. It should have the added bonus of being "politically correct" when viewed by members of the media and public.
The Focused Interviewing System of Interview and Interrogation was
designed by a working interviewer and is practical, easy to use and
very productive.
Check it out for yourself at Focused Interviewing.
No comments:
Post a Comment