Yes, I believe that deception or lying is a valid and justifiable interrogation technique. “Because most deception is employed only after the suspect executes a valid waiver of Miranda rights” (Magid, 2001). “Miranda offers suspects little protection from deceptive interrogation techniques” (Magid, 2001). Additionally, I feel it is justifiable because a person who has been arrested for a crime may not be willing to admit guilt. An individual who has been arrested by police authorities, in most cases, was arrested because there was probable cause to effect the arrest. Probable Cause by definition, is the standard when there is reason to believe, based on the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident, that crime has been, is being or will be committed. if this is the case and an individual has been arrested based on the probable cause, the individual may not be forthcoming so it may take a trained interviewer and/ or interrogator to creatively extract a confession from the individual without violating the law and the individuals constitutionally protected rights. The job of any interrogation first and foremost is the find the truth, not to just “get a confession”. There are evidentiary and/ or ethical ramifications by using this technique. The evidentiary ramifications have to do with the obtaining a confession and how it was obtained. The confession must be obtained within the parameter of the law in order to admitted into evidence. If the confession is obtained in violation of the law then it can be suppressed or thrown out as evidence. The ethnical aspect deals with the way the jury may view the deceptive techniques to obtain a confession. Just because it may be obtained within the parameters of the law does not make it ethical if there is the appearance of deception by the interrogation. The jury’s perception is the jury’s reality. For example, it would be unethical for the interrogator to promise the suspect freedom and no jail time in exchange for his/her signed confession of a crime because this is unethical and not lawful. Deception lawful and legal during interrogation as long as it done appropriately. ” Police in the United States are often trained on Reid’s nine-step interrogation process”(Stinson, 2018). “Reid’s nine-step process of interrogation methods has been revised and expanded in various texts since first introduced in the 1940s and has adopted more manipulative and deceptive practices of interrogation methods over the past thirty years designed to gain psychological advantage over a suspect being interrogated”(Stinson,2018).
References:
Magid, L. (2001). Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far? Retrieved December 2, 2020, from https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2258&context=mlr
Stinson, P. M. (2018). Police Interrogation. Retrieved December 2, 2020, from https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=crim_just_pub
References:
Magid, L. (2001). Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far? Retrieved December 2, 2020, from https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2258&context=mlr
Stinson, P. M. (2018). Police Interrogation. Retrieved December 2, 2020, from https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=crim_just_pub