Policy Suggestions on Interviewing Adult Suspects
1.Use of Accusatorial Methods of Questioning
An accusatorial approach is one that assumes the suspect is guilty and aims to elicit a
confession from them. This approach uses tactics such as establishing control, preventing
the suspect from denying their involvement in the crime and psychological manipulation. The
interviewer conducts an initial interview with the suspect in which they determine whether
they feel the suspect is guilty or not. After this, they conduct a suspect interview in which
they use the aforementioned accusatorial tactics such as holding a position of power over
the suspect and reaffirming that you know they are guilty and just need to confess. The
suspect is not allowed to deny that they are guilty and once they accept this, you move to
the confession phase of the interview. Two explanations for why they committed the crime
are presented to the suspect. Both imply guilt, but one is a “saving face” option (for example,
“you didn’t mean to kill them, you just were angry”). Once this verbal confession is obtained,
the next step is to convert it to a written confession and get the suspect to sign it. It has been
found that these accusatorial tactics elicit a higher rate of false confessions then other
interview tactics. They are also highly immoral and sometimes inadmissible in court due to
their reliance on manipulation and coercion. It is for these reasons that these tactics must be
avoided at all costs.
The use of accusatorial interviewing techniques such as the Reid Technique (King & Snook,
2009) are perhaps the most widely used interview technique present in North American
policing practise (Miller et al., 2018). The accusatorial interview process can be described as
“guilt assuming” with the aim of the interview being on getting a confession out of a suspect,
regardless of whether they actually committed the crime or not. The interview technique
aims to manipulate and extract a confession out of a suspect, the interviewer is the one that
is in control and aims to use this power to corner the suspect into thinking that they have no
choice but to confess (King & Snook, 2009). In a meta-analysis conducted by Meissner et al.
(2014) it was found that whilst accusatorial methods elicit significantly more confessions than
direct questioning alone, they also significantly increase the rate of false confessions. This is
particularly alarming as analysis of exonerations of American prisoners through the use of
DNA evidence found that false confessions were present in the prosecution of 20-25% of
wrongful convictions (White, 2003). Fundamental issues with accusatorial methods have
been thoroughly studied and analysed (Meissner et al., 2014; Meissner et al., 2015; King &
Snook, 2009). One of these issues is with the initial interview itself whereby the interviewer
assesses whether they believe the person is guilty or not. Research has found that the
average accuracy of deception detection is around 54%; with those who are trained to detect
deception (such as police interviewers) being less accurate than untrained individuals
(Kassin, 2008). They have also been found to have higher levels of confidence in their
decision and are more biased towards believing that the person is deceiving them. This is a
problem as an interviewer who assumes guilt in the suspect will neglect contrasting
information and focus on eliciting a confession. Another major issue with accusatorial
processes comes in the form of the tactics used to elicit a confession. During this process,
the suspect is made to feel like the interviewer has all the power and that there is no way out
of this without confessing (Meissner et al., 2015). This, alongside the confrontational
presentation of (potentially fabricated) evidence and the inability to deny their involvement in
a crime may persuade or cause an innocent suspect to admit to something they did not do.
Overall, accusatorial interview methods are successful in their ability to elicit a confession
from a suspect compared to more traditional methods (Meissner et al., 2014). However, due
to their high probability to elicit false confessions and their heavy reliance on psychological
1.Use of Accusatorial Methods of Questioning
An accusatorial approach is one that assumes the suspect is guilty and aims to elicit a
confession from them. This approach uses tactics such as establishing control, preventing
the suspect from denying their involvement in the crime and psychological manipulation. The
interviewer conducts an initial interview with the suspect in which they determine whether
they feel the suspect is guilty or not. After this, they conduct a suspect interview in which
they use the aforementioned accusatorial tactics such as holding a position of power over
the suspect and reaffirming that you know they are guilty and just need to confess. The
suspect is not allowed to deny that they are guilty and once they accept this, you move to
the confession phase of the interview. Two explanations for why they committed the crime
are presented to the suspect. Both imply guilt, but one is a “saving face” option (for example,
“you didn’t mean to kill them, you just were angry”). Once this verbal confession is obtained,
the next step is to convert it to a written confession and get the suspect to sign it. It has been
found that these accusatorial tactics elicit a higher rate of false confessions then other
interview tactics. They are also highly immoral and sometimes inadmissible in court due to
their reliance on manipulation and coercion. It is for these reasons that these tactics must be
avoided at all costs.
The use of accusatorial interviewing techniques such as the Reid Technique (King & Snook,
2009) are perhaps the most widely used interview technique present in North American
policing practise (Miller et al., 2018). The accusatorial interview process can be described as
“guilt assuming” with the aim of the interview being on getting a confession out of a suspect,
regardless of whether they actually committed the crime or not. The interview technique
aims to manipulate and extract a confession out of a suspect, the interviewer is the one that
is in control and aims to use this power to corner the suspect into thinking that they have no
choice but to confess (King & Snook, 2009). In a meta-analysis conducted by Meissner et al.
(2014) it was found that whilst accusatorial methods elicit significantly more confessions than
direct questioning alone, they also significantly increase the rate of false confessions. This is
particularly alarming as analysis of exonerations of American prisoners through the use of
DNA evidence found that false confessions were present in the prosecution of 20-25% of
wrongful convictions (White, 2003). Fundamental issues with accusatorial methods have
been thoroughly studied and analysed (Meissner et al., 2014; Meissner et al., 2015; King &
Snook, 2009). One of these issues is with the initial interview itself whereby the interviewer
assesses whether they believe the person is guilty or not. Research has found that the
average accuracy of deception detection is around 54%; with those who are trained to detect
deception (such as police interviewers) being less accurate than untrained individuals
(Kassin, 2008). They have also been found to have higher levels of confidence in their
decision and are more biased towards believing that the person is deceiving them. This is a
problem as an interviewer who assumes guilt in the suspect will neglect contrasting
information and focus on eliciting a confession. Another major issue with accusatorial
processes comes in the form of the tactics used to elicit a confession. During this process,
the suspect is made to feel like the interviewer has all the power and that there is no way out
of this without confessing (Meissner et al., 2015). This, alongside the confrontational
presentation of (potentially fabricated) evidence and the inability to deny their involvement in
a crime may persuade or cause an innocent suspect to admit to something they did not do.
Overall, accusatorial interview methods are successful in their ability to elicit a confession
from a suspect compared to more traditional methods (Meissner et al., 2014). However, due
to their high probability to elicit false confessions and their heavy reliance on psychological
