Investigative Interviewing of Offenders

The investigative interviewing of offenders is, arguably, the most important aspect of a criminal investigation. It allows law enforcement the opportunity to gather information from people who have or may have knowledge needed in the investigation. Interviewing and interrogating are often confused with each other, though major differences exist. Interviewing may be defined as the process of obtaining information from individuals who might possess information about a particular offense, as part of the process of investigation. Interrogation, on the other hand, is where information acquired through the investigation is matched to a specific suspect in order to secure a confession.

To succeed in interviewing potential suspects, a person needs a number of advantageous personal characteristics. For instance, an interviewer needs to control the interview in a surreptitious fashion, that is, control the events taking place during the interview in a manner that could lead to the gleaning of new information. Establishing rapport, asking good questions, and listening carefully are elements needed for a successful interview.

An effective interviewer must be both knowledgeable and skilled in psychology, acting, and sales ability. Persuasiveness and perseverance are mandatory for success. The interviewer must appear friendly, the type of person who is easy to talk with. The interviewer can accomplish this by using vocal inflection and modulation as an actor does, with emphasis placed on his or her body language; that is, the interviewer looks, talks, and acts like a “nice” person. The interviewer needs the ability to exhibit empathy, sympathy, anger, fear, and joy at various times (even if he or she does not feel the emotion). For the interview to be successful, the interviewer must be knowledgeable regarding the facts of the case, as well as the individuals involved. If the interviewer is shoddy in his or her preparation, a criminal could escape unscathed. If the interview is to be conducted with a witness other than the victim, the interviewer should find out as much as possible about the witness before the interview takes place. The interviewer should know the victim's background, lifestyle, and the nature of the injury or loss- as much information as possible in order to solve the crime. In terms of questioning potential suspects, the interviewer should have as much personal information about the individual as possible.

A good interviewer must be able to ferret out useful information from the witnesses and/or suspects of the crime. For instance, information may still be affected by other factors that influence all witnesses, such as age, physical characteristics, and emotions. A skilled interviewer would probably interview a talkative witness at the beginning of an investigation, and then compare it with stories given by other witnesses later.

Prior to 1936, interviewers could do almost anything they pleased concerning the extraction of an admission of guilt from a suspect. However, the Supreme Court, in its first decision regarding investigative interviewing, ruled in Brown v. Mississippi that a confession gained due to the police exhibiting barbaric behavior toward the accused could not be considered freely given. In the 1960s, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Miranda v. Arizona that certain procedures had to be followed by officers when conducting an in-custody interrogation of a suspect. The court specified that prior to interrogation, the suspect must be told that he or she has the right to remain silent, that anything he or she said could and would be used in court against him or her, and the right to consult with an attorney prior to answering any questions and to have an attorney present during interrogation, as well as the right to counsel, so if the suspect could not afford an attorney, the court would appoint one.

...