Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Read online

Nature of c rime. Some authors have noted a difference in the rate of con-

  fession depending on the type of crime, especially when comparing non - violent

  and violent crimes. Neubauer (1974) observed that those who committed a

  non - violent crime were twice as likely to confess than those who committed

  a violent crime (56% vs. 32%). For some, the most diffi cult type of crime to

  confess to is sexual crime (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002 ; St - Yves, 2002;

  2006b ). This could be explained by the negative perception (e.g., shame,

  rejection, humiliation) associated with this type of crime. However, other

  studies have found no signifi cant relationship between the type of crime and

  confession rate (Moston et al ., 1992 ; Deslauriers - Varin, 2006 , Deslauriers -

  Varin et al ., 2009 ). Moston et al . (1992) contended that prior research looking

  at the possible link between the type of crime committed and confession and

  fi nding a signifi cant connection used inappropriate methodology. They argued

  that prior studies had not taken into account the possible interactions between

  the type of crime committed and situational factors, such as access to legal

  advice and the quality and/or strength of evidence.

  Seriousness of c rime. It would be logical to think that the more serious the

  crime, the fewer people will confess because they fear the consequences; more

  serious crime usually leading to heavier penalties. That is the fi nding of empiri-

  cal studies that have examined police interrogations held in various police

  departments (Neubauer, 1974 ; Moston et al ., 1992 ; Phillips & Brown, 1998 ;

  St - Yves, 2002 ). However, Moston et al . (1992) stress that the infl uence of

  other relevant variables, such as the more frequent use of an attorney in cases

  of serious crime, should not be ignored.

  In the studies mentioned above, the majority of the individual and crimi-

  nological factors have not received unanimous support regarding their role in

  the confession process during police interrogation. Confessing is a complex

  process which cannot be explained by one factor alone but, rather, by a series

  of factors that interact. To date, only a few studies have analysed or considered

  these interactions (Deslauriers - Varin et al ., 2009 ). Studies need to carry out

  multivariate, rather than bivariate, statistical analyses to check not only the

  unique effect of each variable but also their interaction with the other factors

  included in the model, thus helping to get an overall picture of the direct and

  indirect relationships explaining the decision - making process of confession of

  a crime.

  6

  Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing

  Contextual f actors

  Recent studies show that contextual factors have most impact in the confession

  process of a suspect (Deslauriers - Varin & St - Yves, 2006 ; Deslauriers - Varin

  et al ., 2009 ; St - Yves & Tanguay, 2009 ). The main contextual factors are: the

  quality/strength of the evidence (real or perceived); access to legal advice; and

  strategies and techniques of interrogation.

  Quality/ s trength of the e vidence. Even if the decision - making process of

  the confession is often affected by a combination of factors (Gudjonsson,

  2003 ; St - Yves, 2004a ), the suspect ’ s perception of the strength of the evidence

  against him or her is a determining factor in the process of confession. Two -

  thirds of suspects (66.7%) admitted their crime when the evidence against

  them appeared strong to them, compared to a third (36.4%) when the strength

  of the evidence seemed modest, and one in ten (9.9%) when there was little

  or no evidence (Williamson, 1990 ). Gudjonsson et al . observed that nearly

  70% of people interrogated by police admitted that they would not have con-

  fessed if they had not been suspected by police. Of those, between 55% and

  60% said that they confessed because they were convinced that police had

  enough evidence against them (Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991 ; Gudjonsson

  & Bownes,

  1992 ; Sigurdsson

  & Gudjonsson,

  1994 ). In a study of adult

  offenders sentenced to a federal term (two years or more), we observed that

  the rate of confession almost doubled (from 31.4% to 55.6%) when the evi-

  dence was perceived by the suspect as being relatively strong (Deslauriers -

  Varin,

  2006 ; Deslauriers

  - Varin

  & St

  - Yves,

  2006 ). In a logistic regression

  model, the suspects perceiving the strength of the evidence against them as

  good were three time more likely to confess during police interrogation

  (Deslauriers - Varin et al ., 2009 ). The explanation is simple: in the face of over-

  whelming evidence, denial is useless. For the suspect, there are only two pos-

  sible choices: to remain silent or to give a version that will give him or her an

  opportunity to explain (while minimizing) his behaviour and/or ‘ save face ’ .

  Access to l egal a dvice. The offi cial caution can infl uence the decision to

  confess or not to the police. In Canada, the caution is made to any person in

  custody, arrested or not, and interrogated for a crime he or she is likely to be

  implicated in. And contrary to the practice in the USA and the UK, Canadian

  law does not recognize the moral necessity for the attorney to be present in

  the interrogation room; it only recognizes the right to inform the suspect of

  his or her right to remain silent and to contact an attorney immediately, usually

  by telephone. However, in accordance with the law on judicial procedures for

  teenagers, there is an exception when the person interrogated is aged between

  12 and 18. However, it is left to the discretion of the police offi cer whether

  to allow the attorney to be present during the interrogation. In such a case,

  the attorney would become a witness and could be summoned as such if the

  statement is disputed and a voir dire becomes necessary. Beyond the caution,

  The Psychology of Suspects’ Decision-Making during Interrogation

  7

  police offi cers will generally insist that the suspect contacts an attorney and

  will make sure that this strictly confi dential conversation is entirely satisfactory

  to the suspect. Usually, the attorney will recommend that his/her client

  remains silent during the police interrogation. Sometimes, the attorney will

  even describe to the client the usual process of police interrogation and the

  most frequent strategies used by police offi cers to persuade suspects to confess.

  If the perception of the strength of the evidence is a major determining

  factor in the decision to confess, availing oneself of the right to contact an

  attorney seems to be the factor that might best explain why some suspects do

  not confess or refuse to cooperate with the police (Moston, Stephenson &

  Williamson, 1992 ; Leo, 1996 ; Phillips & Brown, 1998 ; Deslauriers - Varin et al .,

  2009 ). Moston et al . (1992) found in their study that one suspect in two

  (50%) who did not consult an attorney confessed compared to 30% of those

  who did. Pearse et al . (1998) and Phillips & Brown (1998) found that suspects

  who used their legal right to contact an
attorney were four times less likely to

  confess to the police. The results recently obtained in a predictive model of

  confession make it possible to quantify the actual impact of this factor: access

  to legal advice reduced by 83% the odds of confessing (Deslauriers - Varin,

  2006 ). This seems to confi rm the perception of some police offi cers, who

  believe that suspects ’ access to an attorney is an impediment to their coopera-

  tion (Leiken, 1970 ; Walsh, 1982 ). However, Moston et al . (1992) observed

  that those choosing to remain silent are more likely to be sentenced than those

  who deny their crime during interrogation. Thus, remaining silent is not always

  an advantage.

  Interrogation s trategies and t echniques. The literature promoting various

  interrogation techniques is abundant. Kalbfl eisch (1994) reviewed more than

  80 books on the subject, the majority of them from the USA. Most of these,

  written by experienced investigators (see Macdonald

  & Michaud,

  1987 ;

  Zulawski & Wicklander, 1992 ; Walters, 1995 ; Inbau et al ., 2001 ; Gordon &

  Fleisher, 2002 ), aspire to give techniques to police offi cers to obtain confes-

  sions. The most popular interrogation technique, not without controversy, is

  the Reid technique (see www.reid.com ). According to the Reid Institute, this

  method, developed in the 1950s and fi rst published in the 1960s, would be

  effective 80% of the time. However, Gudjonsson (2003) doubts this high

  success rate. In fact, confession rates found in North American studies, where

  most of the investigators were trained in the Reid (or related) technique,

  normally range between 42% and 57% (Neubauer, 1974 ; Leo, 1996 ; Cassell

  & Hayman, 1998 ; St - Yves & Lavall é e, 2002 ; Deslauriers - Varin & St - Yves,

  2006 ). Moreover, the mean confession rate (50%) has been relatively stable

  for the last 40 years (Gudjonsson, 2003 ).

  The actual effectiveness of various interrogation techniques is diffi cult to

  measure. In a North American study, Leo

  (1996) demonstrated that the

  quantity and the nature of strategies used by police offi cers during interro-

  gation infl uenced the rate of confession. Other than the use of a variety of

  8

  Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing

  interrogation strategies, appealing to the suspect ’ s conscience is the technique

  that seems to have the greater infl uence on the confession process (Leo, 1996 ).

  Other strategies, such as identifi cation of the contradictions in the suspect ’ s

  denial and statement, using praise and fl attery, then allowing the suspect to

  ease his guilt and justify himself, while giving him moral justifi cations or psy-

  chological excuses, have also shown their effectiveness (Leo, 1996 ). This is

  not surprising since those methods are inspired by factors – especially contex-

  tual ones – that favour confession.

  Everyone interrogated by police for a crime that they have actually com-

  mitted lives with fear with regard to the consequences of their actions. These

  stakes can become major obstacles that can hinder the confession process. The

  role of the police offi cer will thus be to overcome these obstacles by stressing

  the main facilitating factors, such as the quality/strength of the evidence

  (which police offi cers do not always have) and internal pressures (guilt,

  remorse). Despite all the efforts to obtain a confession and in spite of (some-

  times) overpowering evidence, some people continue to deny or do not

  confess. The major reason is probably fear of the consequences. Two major

  types of consequences inhibit confession: real consequences and personal con-

  sequences (Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991 ; Gudjonsson & Bownes, 1992 ;

  Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 1994 ). These inhibiting factors can obstruct the

  confession process and help explain why, even though they have remorse and

  think that police have enough or strong evidence against them, suspects can

  still decide to deny their crime or to remain silent.

  We call real consequences all concrete consequences that can happen or

  worry a suspect while being interrogated for a crime he or she has committed.

  Amongst the most usual real consequences, there is the fear of penal sanction

  (Gudjonsson, 2003 ). Among people with no prior involvement with the crimi-

  nal justice system, there is the fear of getting a criminal record and, especially,

  facing the consequences of this, such as losing a job or having diffi culty fi nding

  employment. The fear of legal sanctions is associated with loss of freedom

  (imprisonment) and, in certain countries, with the death penalty. By confessing

  their crime, certain suspects also fear the consequences they will have to

  undergo if their statement incriminates others. Such consequences can become

  more undesirable for the suspect than the penal sanction.

  Amongst other probable consequences, there is the fear of losing loved ones

  (spouse, children, family, friends). This fear is greater for individuals suspected

  of a sexual crime, as well as the fear of losing their job, especially if the crime

  has been committed at the place of employment. There are also fi nancial losses,

  in particular regarding arson or major fraud. These consequences are poten-

  tially real – this is the reason why they can inhibit the confession process – but

  they are never immediate. Suspects can hope that their spouse will understand,

  that the boss still needs them, that the judge will show clemency. Sometimes,

  while discussing these fears with the suspect, the investigator can moderate

  their inhibiting infl uence. However, the investigator cannot use promises or

  The Psychology of Suspects’ Decision-Making during Interrogation

  9

  threats to reduce these inhibiting factors. The illusion of promises/advantages

  or threats raises reasonable doubt regarding the free and voluntary nature of

  the subsequent statement and the true culpability of the accused (see St - Yves,

  in press ).

  Personal consequences are often feared more than judicial consequences

  because they are immediate and touch on integrity and self - esteem. As soon

  as suspects confess, they lose dignity and respect, initially from the self and

  then from people whom they care about. This is particularly true with sexual

  crimes (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002 ). To mitigate the infl uence of these

  inhibitors, the investigator often uses valorization or focuses on certain defence

  mechanisms, such as minimization, projection and rationalization. However,

  sometimes the investigator becomes an inhibiting factor because of his or her

  attitude (St - Yves, 2004b; 2006a ).

  Some recent studies have shown the importance of the quality of the

  interviewer – interviewee relationship for the outcome of an investigative inter-

  view, including the one made with the suspect. The preliminary steps that we

  can fi nd in most interrogations conducted in North America are used not only

  to evaluate the conscious state of mind of the subject ( ‘ operating mind ’ ), in

  particular his aptitude to be interrogated by police, but also to establish a

  trustful relationship with the suspect thus facilitating his
or her confession.

  Indeed, active listening, empathy, openness, respect and the desire to discover

  the truth, rather than to try at all costs to obtain a confession, are, we contend,

  the essential qualities for carrying out investigative interviews (Shepherd, 1991 ;

  Williamson, 1993 ; St - Yves, Tanguay & Cr é pault, 2004 ; St - Yves, 2006a ).

  Are a ll i nterrogation t echniques and

  s trategies a cceptable?

  Although strong evidence is a determining factor in the confession process,

  police offi cers often do not have strong enough evidence. Certain studies have

  revealed that technical evidence (fi ngerprints, DNA, etc.) is only available in

  10% of cases (Bottomley

  & Coleman,

  1980 ; Horvath

  & Meesig,

  1996 ).

  Instead, much of the available evidence usually rests on statements, including

  that given by the suspect.

  Is it acceptable to use strategies and ruses to obtain a confession? This ques-

  tion raises legal considerations (e.g., what is allowed by law in various coun-

  tries?) and ethical considerations (i.e., what is morally acceptable?). This is a

  subjective question that cannot be disassociated from the cultural and judicial

  context in which the interrogation is conducted. In certain countries, torture

  is common and legal. Furthermore, the perception and tolerance that the

  population can have towards certain interrogation methods is probably closely

  associated with the nature of the crime. The context can also infl uence the

  10

  Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing

  way interrogations are conducted. The war on terrorism has militarized crimi-

  nal justice systems and changed the rules: ‘ Suspects are interrogated by military

  in ways that would never be accepted by the ordinary courts with criminal

  suspects ’ (Williamson, 2006 : 5).

  In Canada and the USA, tribunals accept the use of certain strategies and

  persuasive methods (see R v Oickle [2000] ). The Supreme Court of Canada

  offers support for the investigator ’ s need to be less than truthful during an

  interrogation. It referenced the often cited decision of Justice Lamer, who

  wrote that a criminal investigation and the search for criminals is not a game

  that has to follow the Queensbury rules (introduced in the nineteenth century