Coercive Interrogation Research Articles

The effect of confession evidence on jurors' verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Over the past 4 decades, discrepant research findings have emerged in the juror-confession literature, prompting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the effect of confession evidence (coerced or noncoerced) on conviction rates and the efficacy of trial safeguards. We did not predict any directional hypotheses. Some studies show increased convictions when a confession is present (vs. not), regardless of whether that confession was coerced; other studies demonstrate that jurors are able to discount coerced confessions. Studies have also demonstrated sensitivity effects (safeguards aided jurors in making appropriate decisions), skepticism effects (safeguards led jurors to indiscriminately disregard confession evidence), or null effects with regard to expert testimony and jury instructions. We identified 83 independent samples (N = 24,860) that met our meta-analytic inclusion criteria. Using extracted Hedges' g effect sizes, we conducted both network meta-analysis and metaregression to address key research questions. Coerced and noncoerced confessions (vs. no confession) increased convictions (network gs = 0.34 and 0.70, respectively), yet coerced (vs. noncoerced) confessions reduced convictions (network g = -0.36). When jury instructions were employed (vs. not), convictions in coerced confession cases were reduced (this difference did not emerge for noncoerced confessions; a sensitivity effect). Expert testimony, however, reduced conviction likelihood regardless of whether a confession was coerced (a skepticism effect). Confession evidence is persuasive, and although jurors appear to recognize the detrimental effect of coercive interrogation methods on confession reliability, they do not fully discount unreliable confessions. Educational safeguards are therefore needed, but more research is encouraged to identify the most effective forms of jury instructions and expert testimony. One potential reform could be in the interrogation room itself, as science-based interviewing approaches could provide jurors with more reliable defendant statement evidence that assists them in reaching appropriate verdict decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Individual attitudes toward coerced confessions change perception of confession evidence: why jurors may accept or reject poor-quality confessions

Wrongful conviction statistics indicate that jurors will accept confession evidence even when it was coerced or contains inconsistent information. While research has considered the role of both inconsistencies and coercion in juror decisions about retracted confessions, little attention has been given to whether juror attitudes toward coerced confessions contribute to perception of suspect guilt. Using an experimental design, we manipulated the presence of inconsistencies and coercion in a fictional confession transcript. When presented with a coerced confession, low support for coercive interrogation techniques predicted lower belief in the suspect’s guilt, unlike those with higher support for coercion who did not alter their verdicts. This indicates that the effect of coercion on perceived suspect guilt differs depending on the juror’s individual attitude towards coercion. Inconsistencies in the confession similarly influenced judgements of guilt dependent on whether the person believed that confessions could be coerced from an innocent person. Implications are discussed further.

An attribution theory-based content analysis of mock jurors' deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Because confessions are sometimes unreliable, it is important to understand how jurors evaluate confession evidence. We conducted a content analysis testing an attribution theory model for mock jurors' discussion of coerced confession evidence in determining verdicts. We tested exploratory hypotheses regarding mock jurors' discussion of attributions and elements of the confession. We expected that jurors' prodefense statements, external attributions (attributing the confession to coercion), and uncontrollable attributions (attributing the confession to defendant naivety) would predict more prodefense than proprosecution case judgments. We also expected that being male, politically conservative, and in support of the death penalty would predict proprosecution statements and internal attributions, which in turn would predict guilty verdicts. Mock jurors (N = 253, Mage = 47 years; 65% women; 88% White, 10% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% listed "other") read a murder trial synopsis, watched an actual coerced false confession, completed case judgments, and deliberated in juries of up to 12 members. We videotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded deliberations. Most mock jurors (53%) rendered a guilty verdict. Participants made more prodefense than proprosecution statements, more external than internal attributions, and more internal than uncontrollable attributions. Participants infrequently mentioned various elements of the interrogation (police coercion, contamination, promises of leniency, interrogation length) and psychological consequences for the defendant. Proprosecution statements and internal attributions predicted proprosecution case judgments. Women made more prodefense and external attribution statements than men, which in turn predicted diminished guilt. Political conservatives and death penalty proponents made more proprosecution statements and internal attributions than their counterparts, respectively, which in turn predicted greater guilt. Some jurors identified coercive elements of a false confession and rendered external attributions for a defendant's false confession (attributing the confession to the coercive interrogation) during deliberation. However, many jurors made internal attributions, attributing a defendant's false confession to his guilt-attributions that predicted juror and jury inclinations to convict an innocent defendant. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

“It is Permitted for the Amīr but not the Qāḍī”: The Military-Administrative Genealogy of Coercion in Abbasid Criminal Justice

Abstract Muslim rulers and law enforcers used coercion as an evidentiary method for criminal cases during the Abbasid period. These coercive procedures consisted of imprisonment, threats of beatings, and lashings. Coercive interrogations were shaped by the practices of the shurṭa (criminal magistrates and police chiefs), based on military methods, administrative precedents, and discretion, not on fiqh (Islamic substantive law). In the Abbasid era (300–500 A.H./900–1100 C.E.), government officials, such as Ibn Wahb (d. after 335/946), and even some jurists, particularly the chief judge al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), legitimized these coercive practices by framing their use as a matter determined by authority and jurisdiction. By tracing the military-administrative genealogy of coercion, I seek to examine the methods and reasoning that constituted the criminal justice system that came to be known as siyāsa. Drawing on various administrative and literary sources, I examine a history of coercion in Islamic law beyond fiqh.

The detrimental impact of alcohol intoxication on facets of Miranda comprehension.

Law enforcement officers often encounter alcohol-intoxicated suspects, suggesting that many suspects are presented with the challenge of grasping the meaning and significance of their Miranda rights while intoxicated. Such comprehension is crucial, given that Miranda is intended to minimize the likelihood of coercive interrogations resulting in self-incrimination and protect suspects' constitutional rights. Yet, the effects of alcohol on individuals' ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights remain unknown-a gap that the present study sought to address. Informed by alcohol myopia theory (AMT), we predicted that intoxicated individuals would demonstrate impaired Miranda comprehension compared to sober individuals and those who believed they were intoxicated (but were in fact not; i.e., placebo participants). After health screenings, participants completed the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition verbal subtests, rendering a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) score. We randomly assigned participants to consume alcohol (n = 51; mean breath alcohol concentration [BrAC] = 0.07%), a placebo condition (n = 44; BrAC = 0.00%), or a sober control condition (n = 41; BrAC = 0.00%). All participants (N = 136) completed the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), which measured participants' understanding of the Miranda warnings, recognition of the warnings, appreciation of their rights in interrogation and court settings, and understanding of Miranda-related vocabulary. We found a significant effect of intoxication condition on participants' understanding of Miranda warnings (η²p = .14) and Miranda-related vocabulary (η²p = .05) when controlling for VCI scores. Specifically, intoxicated participants received lower scores for understanding of warnings compared to sober and placebo participants, and lower scores for understanding of Miranda vocabulary compared to sober participants. Alcohol did not significantly impact Miranda rights recognition or appreciation. Alcohol intoxication may detrimentally impact some facets of Miranda comprehension. Thus, it is important that law enforcement consider refraining from questioning intoxicated suspects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Operational psychology, professional ethics, and democracy: A challenge for our time.

The post-9/11 United States abusive deten-tion and interrogation program brought atten-tion to the critical roles of health professionals generally and of psychologists more particu-larly in the modern administration of torture and other detainee abuse. Over a decade of controversy in the American Psychological Association (APA) and an independent in-vestigation finding APA collusion with the Bush administration's torture and coercive interrogation programs led to 2015 policies restricting the activities of psychologists in national security interrogations and illegal detention sites like Guantanamo. This con-troversy expanded to evaluation of a broader set of issues regarding the ethical roles of psy-chologists in furthering military and intelli-gence operations, or what has become known as Operational Psychology. Controversy over the extent to which Operational Psychology activities are consistent with psychological ethics has expanded since 2015 with critics calling for policies restraining Operational Psychologists from involvement in activities that cause greater than trivial unstipulated harm, lack informed consent, or are absent plausible independent ethical monitoring (due, for instance to security classification). Operational Psychologists have pushed back against any constraints on their actions other than US law and government regulations. This debate also raises a broader issue: are there limitations on the extent to which we, as members of democratic societies, can tolerate the use of psychological science and expertise to manipulate unwitting people?

Sensitivity to Psychologically Coercive Interrogations: A Comparison of Instructions and Expert Testimony to Improve Juror Decision-Making

ABSTRACT Confession evidence is powerful to jurors, even when obtained using psychologically coercive means. To assist jurors in evaluating confession evidence, courts may provide instructions or expert testimony. The current study examined the relative effectiveness of these two safeguards. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a confession that either did or did not result from the use of psychologically coercive (but legal) tactics and received either instructions, expert testimony, or no safeguard. Jurors were sensitive to psychologically coercive interrogation tactics on their own, reducing perceptions of guilt, evidence strength, detective credibility, and confession voluntariness when interrogation pressure was high. Instructions made jurors skeptical of both confessions relative to expert testimony, and in some cases, compared to the absence of any safeguard. Sensitivity was not observed for either safeguard. Results suggest jurors’ knowledge of psychologically coercive interrogation tactics is improving, but effective safeguards are still needed.

Legal safeguards against involuntary criminal confessions in Poland and Russia

A confissão criminal é uma prova poderosa e altamente incriminadora. Uma confissão autoincriminatória autêntica pode ser uma fonte produtiva de novas provas conhecidas apenas pelo verdadeiro autor do crime. Ela também ajuda a acusação a construir um caso mais forte contra o réu em uma situação em que apenas indícios estão disponíveis. Em alguns casos, como homicídios sem localização do corpo e incêndios criminosos em terras selvagens, é difícil provar a participação e a culpa do réu sem o seu consentimento e total cooperação. Tudo isso explica por que, na era das técnicas forenses avançadas, os investigadores buscam obter confissões usando uma variedade de estratégias. Estudos mostram, entretanto, que algumas técnicas de interrogatório têm maior probabilidade de induzir falsas confissões, o que, por sua vez, potencializa o risco de erros judiciais. Do ponto de vista dos direitos humanos, o Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos expressou sérias preocupações sobre o uso de provas obtidas por meio de violência, coerção ou tortura, mas não estabeleceu um equilíbrio entre a aplicação eficaz da lei penal e a proteção adequada dos direitos individuais. Neste artigo, analisam-se as disposições legais contra a compulsão policial imprópria na Polônia e na Rússia. Afirma-se que cada país adota uma perspectiva diferente sobre a questão da coerção policial. Na Rússia, a lei fornece regras específicas sobre a admissibilidade de confissões criminais, seu valor probatório e métodos de verificação da confiabilidade do depoimento do suspeito. Na Polônia, a lei confere aos tribunais nacionais uma maior discricionariedade quanto ao modo de lidar com a confissão e as alegações em relação à utilização de técnicas de interrogatório coercivas. Com base nos resultados da análise de dispositivos legais pertinentes, jurisprudência e revisão bibliográfica, nesta pesquisa busca-se determinar a eficácia de dois modelos jurídicos na prevenção e tratamento de confissões penais coagidas. Em sede proporsitica, alterações foram sugeridas para abordar a questão do formalismo judicial excessivo em relação às alegações sobre o uso de técnicas de interrogatório ilegais.

Antisubjugation and the Equal Protection of the Laws

This Article challenges 150 years of conventional wisdom regarding whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects people against “private” violence and secures “positive” rights to governmental aid. The conventional wisdom is that it does neither; this Article argues that it does both. More specifically, it contends that (1) the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause imposes an affirmative duty on states to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people; (2) the original function of the Clause was to prevent subjugation of people’s lives, bodies, and possessions by state and nonstate actors; and (3) the Supreme Court has since its 1883 decision in the Civil Rights Cases misinterpreted the letter and undermined the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause by denying (1) and neglecting (2). Scholars have long criticized the Court’s reasoning in The Civil Rights Cases and more recent state-action and positive-rights decisions like DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services and United States v. Morrison. But the leading alternative theories of the Equal Protection Clause either deny that the Fourteenth Amendment contains any state-action/no-positive-rights limitations or hold that equal protection of the laws entails only a narrow duty to protect people against violence. Against the former, I ground my constitutional objection to the state-action doctrine in the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Against the latter, I claim that the affirmative duty to protect guarantees not only protection against violence but protection against other forms of subjugation—that is, subjection of the bodies and possessions of some to the untrammeled will of others. An arrestee may be subjugated through a physically coercive police interrogation; an evictee may be subjugated through a civil proceeding that deprives them of their home; a criminal defendant may be subjugated by being detained owing to failure to make bail. Putting constitutional theory in conversation with ongoing social movements, I suggest that the “Civil Gideon” movement and the Movement for Black Lives might find constitutional resources in the letter and the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause. Finally, I propose that Congress is best-situated among federal institutional decisionmakers to thwart subjugation and that the Court’s lack of confidence in its own institutional competence ought no longer serve as an excuse for disabling Congress from enforcing the Equal Protection Clause.

The (de)legitimation of torture: rhetoric, shaming and narrative contestation in two British cases

Existing studies on democracies’ involvement in torture emphasise how governments have been able to circumvent the international anti-torture norm and shape public discourse on the issue through powerful rhetorical strategies of denial and exception. Less attention has been paid, however, to the rhetoric of opponents of torture and how it impacts on governments and security agencies. This article proposes a typology of four common arguments against torture, which make use variously of ethical, utilitarian and ‘shaming’ rhetoric. These arguments often take a narrative form and are extensively contested by governments. Drawing on the literature on rhetorical coercion, I argue that anti-torture narratives can play an important role in constraining democratic states and significantly reducing their perpetration of torture. Yet the multiplicity of narratives at play opens up opportunities for governments to accept some messages against torture while simultaneously contesting others in a way which enables them to continue their involvement in torture. I develop this argument through a comparative analysis of the role of torture in two British counterterrorism campaigns – against Irish republican terrorism in the 1970s and against jihadist violence after 9/11. Differences in the content and salience of the narratives advanced by critics of the government during the two time periods explain much about why the British government contested some arguments against torture, but accepted others. This variation helps to explain in turn why British security agencies carried out coercive interrogations on a wide scale during the 1970s, while their perpetration of torture was significantly reduced in the post-9/11 case.

Critical Psychological Teaching in Introduction to Psychology: How to Teach the Problem of American Psychology in its Relation to Coercive Interrogation in War on Terror

Critical Psychological Teaching in Introduction to Psychology: How to Teach the Problem of American Psychology in its Relation to Coercive Interrogation in War on Terror

Incommunicado detention and torture in Spain, Part III: 'Five days is enough’: the concept of torturing environments

Torture is changing in western societies, evolving from pain-producing torture to more subtle mixed psychological methods that are harder to detect. Despite this, there is not an adequate understanding of the complexities of contemporary psychological techniques used in coercive interrogation and torture. The interrogation and torture techniques used on 45 detainees held in short-term incommunicado detention in Spain during the period 1980-2012 were analyzed. The list of torture categories set out in the Istanbul Protocol (IP) were assessed quantitatively. Software-aided qualitative analysis of the testimonies was conducted, using both inferential and deductive approaches to deduce a classification of torture techniques from the point of view of the survivor. The most frequent methods according to the IP categories used against detainees were isolation and manipulation of environment (100%), humiliation (93%), psychological techniques to break down the individual (91%), threats (89%) and forced positions and physical exercises until extenuation (80%). Additionally, with a frequency of between 51 and 70%, mild but constant blows, being forced to witness the torture of others, hooding (mainly dry asphyxia) and unacceptable undue conditions of detention were also frequent. Sexual torture was also widespread with sexual violence (42%), forced nudity (38%) and rape (7%). Qualitative analysis showed that most detainees were submitted to coercive interrogation using a wide array of deceptive techniques. This is often a central part of the torturing process, frequently used in conjunction with many other methods. It was found that giving false or misleading information or making false accusations was most frequently used, followed by maximization of responsibility or facts and giving false information regarding relatives or friends. Different patterns of harsh interrogation, ill-treatment and torture are described that appear to have been tailored to the profile of Basque detainees. The study shows the need to improve the conceptualization of psychological torture suggested by the IP. Key to this view is the idea that we must not concern ourselves with 'torture methods' but with Torturing Environments. The concept of Torturing Environments is defined and proposed as a focus for future study.

Research-Based Instructions Induce Sensitivity to Confession Evidence

Evidence is mixed on whether or not laypersons have sufficient knowledge of false confession risk factors. Procedural safeguards such as judicial instructions may assist jurors who are unable to effectively evaluate confession evidence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of five conditions that varied in the quality of a confession and the presence of instructions on coercive interrogation techniques. The results indicate that instructions induce sensitivity by altering verdict decisions and perceptions of evidence strength and confession voluntariness in line with the quality of the interrogation. Furthermore, the presence of instructions in low-quality interrogations resulted in participants completely discounting the confession. These findings suggest that research-based instructions on coercive interrogation techniques may be an effective safeguard against the use of potentially unreliable confession evidence.

Lay perceptions of interrogation techniques: Identifying the role of Belief in a Just World and Right Wing Authoritarianism

AbstractFalse confessions due to overtly coercive interrogation techniques have led to the development of more ethically‐minded alternative techniques. Several studies have surveyed the public about their perceptions of confession‐oriented techniques (e.g., Leo & Liu, ), although none have examined the use of information gathering and strategic interviewing techniques or individual differences in such perceptions. Thus, the current study assessed public perceptions of a wide variety of techniques by recruiting a total of 332 participants. Results indicated that our participants would rather risk releasing a guilty person than convicting an innocent. Overall, confession‐oriented techniques were rated the least acceptable and effective across participants. However, perceptions of these techniques varied as a function of Belief in a Just World (BJW; Lipkus, ) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Zakrisson, ). Specifically, those higher in these two individual differences found confession‐oriented techniques to be both more acceptable and effective than those scoring lower on these measures. The results speak to the importance of individual differences and the potential for such differences to bias juror decision‐making when interrogation evidence is at stake.

Regulating the Commander in Chief: Some Theories

Recent events have caused scholars to consider a long ignored issue: the relation between the commander in chief (CINC) and Congress's powers to regulate the armed forces and captures. The famous Bybee memorandum brought this issue to the fore when it asserted that Congress could not interfere with "the President's direction of such core war matters such as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. The memo's critics scoffed at this claim, insisting that Congress may regulate the detention of enemy soldiers. With their articles in this issue, Dean Harold Koh, Neil Kinkopf, and others have added their voices to the clamor against the Bybee memo.Although one might generate any number of theories about the interaction of the Commander in Chief Clause and Congress's war regulatory powers, four seem most plausible. This essay sketches these theories with sufficiently broad strokes that none of these sketches will satisfactorily answer questions about who may regulate certain aspects of a war. In particular, these theories will tell us nothing about whether the Bybee memo or its critics have the better argument about whether Congress can limit the CINC's ability to order coercive interrogation techniques.First, it is possible to suppose that congressional and presidential powers do not overlap at all. A second thesis (the Coterminous Thesis) posits that the powers are coterminous, or at least largely so. A third possibility is what we might call the Partial Overlap. It is possible to suppose that the two powers overlap in some ways, but that each also has an exclusive sphere. The final theory posits that the President has all the powers that Congress has and more, but when Congress acts in its more limited sphere, its rules always trump the President's. Arguments about the structural Constitution that seek to further a particular moral view are likely to be utterly feckless. Torture may be an evil necessary for the successful prosecution of war against Al-Qaeda, or an unspeakable act that benefits absolutely no one. Whatever it is, these difficult moral questions have little to do with whether the Constitution enables the President to order the use of coercive interrogation techniques in the face of a statute that prohibits such means.

Can Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to Coercive Interrogation Tactics?

ABSTRACTLay knowledge concerning false confession risk factors appears to be insufficient to safeguard against wrongful convictions, and research on false confession expert testimony has not led to a clear understanding of its impact on juror decision making. Thus, the current study sought to clarify whether expert testimony can induce sensitivity to a wide variety of false confession risk factors. Furthermore, jurors bring a variety of predispositions into the courtroom that may shape the way they view evidence. Yet, little research has evaluated the impact of individual differences in cases involving confession evidence. The current study assessed 330 participants’ self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing. These participants subsequently read an abbreviated criminal trial transcript where the defendant confessed to committing murder, but later recanted. We varied police use of four psychologically coercive interrogation techniques as well as the presence of expert testimony during the trial. Generally, participants were not sensitive to variations in the psychological coerciveness of the interrogation with or without an expert. However, self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing influenced perceptions of the detective and confession voluntariness, which in turn predicted verdict decisions. Increasing belief that one could falsely confess decreased the likelihood of conviction by decreasing perceptions of detective credibility and confession voluntariness. The results suggest the need to take into account individual differences of jurors who evaluate confession evidence. Current remedies may also need modification to assist jurors in deciphering confession evidence quality.

Unbalanced Policy Priorities and the Interrogation of Terror Suspects

Why do states shift from opposition to torture to its employment in the face of widespread abhorrence and claims that it generates unreliable information? The expected value of acting upon unreliable information depends on the state’s appraisal of the type of error it might be committing. States may value avoiding Type I errors, which result from acting upon incorrect intelligence, differently than avoiding Type II errors, which result from failing to act on an undetected threat. Interrogations yield a mix of truth and lies; operations employing this information will avoid making Type II errors but will also make Type I errors. A state’s preference over error type changes with circumstances (as we show, occurs in Turkey and the United States), leading states to adopt coercive interrogation techniques despite secular abhorrence of torture. Our results suggest anti-torture advocacy might be more effective targeting preferences over error types than reinforcing anti-torture moral imperatives.

Enhanced interrogations: The expanding roles of psychology in police investigations in Canada.

In accordance with their collective ethical principles, the American Psychological Association (APA) joined forces with the American Psychiatric Association in 1985 to denounce the use of torture; their position statement recognised that psychological knowledge could be misused to interrogate detainees inhumanely, violating a primary obligation to respect human dignity (APA, 2015c). Thirty years later, the APA has been implicated in the development and application of torture and coercive of national security targets. In August, 2015, the group announced that its chief executive officer, deputy CEO, and communications chief were no longer associated with the APA; in the 542-page independent Hoffman report all three were found to have worked in conjunction with the Pentagon and the CIA by contributing to coercive interrogation practices (Hoffman et al., 2015; American Psychological Association, 2015b). This reportedly transpired through the contribution of psychological knowledge to enhance torture techniques (e.g., sensory deprivation) for intelligence gathering, the manipulation of ethical guidelines to conceal such practices (Soldz, 2008), and the alignment of such guidelines with policies implemented by the Department of Defence (Hoffman et al., 2015).These deplorable revelations have leftthe psychology community engaging in much self-reflection and head scratching: what were the APA psychologists in leadership positions thinking when participating in this type of activity? After the damning report emerged, a somewhat understandable but obvious knee-jerk reaction occurred; the APA convened in Toronto and voted in support of a new policy barring psychologists from participating in national security altogether (APA, 2015c). Was this an appropriate decision? While APA members appear to have committed an egregious ethical violation by contributing to coercive interrogation practices, should psychologists never be permitted to contribute to the interrogation of individuals suspected to represent security threats? After the publication of the Hoffmann report, APA President-elect Susan McDaniel provided elaboration around this issue (APA, 2015c); her letter stated that although psychologists in the APA are now strictly forbidden from being involved in specific national security interrogations, they are permitted to be involved in general policy guidance concerning humane interrogations (McDaniel & Kaslow, 2015, para. 4).McDaniel's clarification acknowledges that psychologists may have useful knowledge regarding interrogation practices at a policy level. However, it fails to apply to the broad scope of psychological consultations; it could potentially be interpreted to mean that we have few meaningful nor positive direct contributions to make to criminal investigation or intelligence gathering, and/or that we cannot be expected to act ethically in such contexts. Yet, in recent years, the roles of psychologists as consultants in criminal investigations have been expanding in many ways (see Porter & Wrightsman, 2014). The first author, who is consulted on a regular basis by Canadian law enforcement and courts, hoped to take this opportunity to reflect upon the evolving roles and responsibilities of psychologists in criminal investigations. Canadian psychologists should acknowledge the ethical shortcomings demonstrated by the APA and reevaluate their own practices to ensure that they are not only providing the most suitable consultation, but also abiding to their obligations as acting psychologists. If consulting psychologists in Canada ensure that their work in any type of criminal or terrorism investigations is being applied appropriately, our field has much to offer in facilitating criminal investigations. Given these circumstances, it is an appropriate time to examine the practical and ethical issues confronting forensic psychologists who act as consultants in criminal investigations, and, accordingly, suggest the most effective and ethical practices and directions for future research. …

“The Greatest Thrill I Get is When I Hear a Criminal Say, ‘Yes, I Did it’”: Race and the Third Degree in New Orleans, 1920–1945

On May 11, 1938, two New Orleans policemen entered the Astoria Restaurant, marched to the kitchen, and approached Loyd D. T. Washington, a 41-year-old African American cook. They informed Washington that they would be taking him to the First Precinct station for questioning, although they assured the cook that he need not change his clothes and “should be right back” to the “Negro restaurant,” where he had worked for 3 years. Immediately after arriving at the station house, police officers “surrounded” Washington, showed him a photograph of a man, and announced that he had killed a white man in Yazoo City, Mississippi, 20 years earlier. When Washington insisted that he did not know the man in the photograph, that he had never been to (or even heard of) Yazoo City, and that he had been in the army at the time of the murder, the law enforcers confined him in a cell, although they had no warrant for his arrest and did not charge him with any crime. The following day, a detective brought him to the “show-up room” in the precinct house, where he continued the interrogation and, according to Washington, “tried to make me sign papers stating that I had killed a white man” in Mississippi. As every African American New Orleanian knew, the show-up (or line-up) room was the setting where detectives tortured suspects and extracted confessions. “You know you killed him, Nigger,” the detective roared. Washington, however, refused to confess, and the detective began punching him in the face, knocking out five of his teeth. After Washington crumbled to the floor, the detective repeatedly kicked him and broke one of his ribs. The beating continued for an hour, until other policemen restrained the detective, saying “give him a chance to confess and if he doesn't you may start again.” But Washington did not confess, and the violent interrogation began anew. A short time later, another police officer interrupted the detective, telling him “do not kill this man in here, after all he is wanted in Yazoo City.” Bloodied and writhing in pain, Washington asked to contact his family, but the request was ignored. Because he had not been formally charged with a crime, New Orleans law enforcers believed that Washington had no constitutional protection again self-incrimination or coercive interrogation and no right to an arraignment or bail, and they had no obligation to contact his relatives or to provide medical care for him.

Police interrogations through the prism of science

Several approaches can be employed for information gathering from human sources, differing in their theoretical basis, goals, realisation, and ethical acceptability. The paper critically presents and compares two prevalent approaches to suspect interrogation used by the police. The older, prevalent interrogation approach focuses on obtaining suspects' incriminating statements and admissions, which severely elevates the risk of false confessions. Consequently, this interrogation approach is termed accusatorial or coercive since suspects are forced to admit to a crime. The newer interrogation approach is the information-gathering approach, also known as the investigative interview. It focuses on gathering accurate information in order to exclude or accuse a suspect in a criminal investigation. In comparison with coercive interrogation models, the information-gathering approach has a lower probability of false confessions since suspects are exposed to significantly lower levels of psychological pressure. Moreover, it is ethically more acceptable, has scientific grounds, enables the gathering of more accurate information, and has been found to be at least as ef fective as the coercive approach in criminal investigations. The investigative interview relies mainly on findings from social psychology. An analysis of coercive interrogation models reveals that they have no scientific basis and as such rely mainly on uncorroborat ed common-sense assumptions from authorities. In developed countries, coercive interrogation models are increasingly being replaced by the information-gathering approach, a trend connected with the enforcement of high human rights standards and a higher aware ness of risks associated with coercive interrogation methods by the general public, academia, and professionals alike.