POLICE INTERROGATION METHODS IN DISREPUTE

I think that it should be obvious to even the casual reader of this Blog that I am not a cheerleader for police, school boards, the legal system or politicians. That being said, and this posting will continue in the non cheerleading path; nevertheless it is reassuring to be able to occasionally give some good news. Yesterday I had separate face to face dealings with two of Waterloo Region's finest. The conversations involved my reporting of a possible burglary I may have interrupted. The individual whom I only suspected after the fact was a stranger to me. I did very quickly reconsider my original opinion and observed carefully the departing individual, specifically colour, licence plate and further description of their vehicle. I then went and got a piece of paper and wrote down both the details of their car as well as a discription of the individual I had come in contact with. The good news is this: both officers were extremely professional, polite and concerned. Both street level officers did their jobs and communicated well with me as to what they were doing. The second officer who took a significant length of time interviewing me clearly was experienced and asked excellent questions. These kinds of positive interactions are reassuring that police misconduct and misbehaviour is not the norm. I still maintain that when abnormal police behaviour occurs it must be confronted and dealt with appropriately by senior officers. If it is senior officers behaving inappropriately they too must be held accountable.

Last night on CBC News, The National (10 pm.) was a report by Joe Schlesinger concerning police interrogation of suspects. It was an indictment of a method known as the Reid Method. Essentially this method assumes the suspect is guilty from the start. It entails a police officer not so much asking questions pertaining to the suspects involvement in the crime or even of accusing the suspect as it is a flat out statement of fact, brooking no disagreement, telling the suspect in no uncertain terms that they have absolute proof of the suspect's guilt. The police make it very clear that the evidence and proof is overwhelming including forensic and CSI (crime scene investigation) data. Lying and exaggerating by the interrogating officer is both O.K. and encouraged as long as they are confident that the suspect won't catch them. What this does is attempt to avoid the suspect getting into long winded story telling or attempts to come up with an alibi. The officer feigns sympathy pretending to only be concerned as to the why of the crime not the who. The officer suggests that the purpose of the interview is to determine if the suspect is a cold hearted killer for example or basically a decent person who just snapped. Those are the only two options presented to the suspect. This is done even when the police literally have nothing. It is a huge bluff and is also psychological warfare.

The result and purpose of this interrogation method is indeed confessions. Unfortunately it works on both the guilty and the innocent. When an innocent person is overwhelmed, overstressed and overmatched in a battle of wits they often succumb. They believe at the moment what they are being told. They are being led down the garden path and only afterwards do they realize that they've been played by a professional liar and manipulator. Often that's too late and they are convicted not on their deeds nor on any evidence other than their own words coerced in a setting where they are powerless and overwhelmed. This is not justice. Far too many false confessions have been coerced sending the innocent to jail and sometimes allowing the guilty to go free.