manipulation, accusatorial methods should not be used to interview adult suspects.
Ultimately, due to the tunnel vision of the interviewer using this method, the real perpetrator
may be free to commit more crime whereas an innocent, coerced suspect may be left
suffering for a crime they did not commit.
References
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for
reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253.
King, L., & Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a canadian interrogation room: An examination
of the reid model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36(7), 674–694.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., &
Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and
their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486.
Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the Effectiveness of
Suspect Interrogations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(November),
211–233.
Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kelly, C. E. (2018). Accusatorial and information-gathering
interview and interrogation methods: a multi-country comparison. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 24(9), 935-956.
White, W. S. (2003). Confessions in capital cases. U. Ill. L. Rev., 979.
Advice 2: Use of False Evidence.
False evidence ploys (FEPs) are when police present the suspect with fabricated evidence
(such as claiming that an eyewitness saw them at the crime scene). The most prominent
reason to not use FEPs are that they can lead an innocent suspect to be wrongfully
convicted either due to them confessing to a crime they did not commit or by failing to
provide enough of a counter argument against this “evidence”. This can occur because the
innocent suspect knows that they are innocent and they believe that juries will be able to see
this too, despite the presence of contradicting evidence. This leads them making no attempt
to dispute any false evidence as they know they didn’t do it. On top of this, if an FEP is used
against an innocent suspect, it may cause them to believe that they must have committed
the crime (due to the idea that evidence is solely objective and honest), leading to
manipulation of memory, ethical issues and false confessions. Jury studies have found that
the mere presence of a confession (coerced or not) is enough to convince them that the
suspect is guilty. Ultimately, FEPs should never be used in an investigative interview as they
are immoral, ineffective and lead to wrongful convictions.
A false evidence ploy (FEP) can be described as an instance whereby a police officer claims
to have or presents fabricated evidence to a suspect such as an eyewitness testimony or
Ultimately, due to the tunnel vision of the interviewer using this method, the real perpetrator
may be free to commit more crime whereas an innocent, coerced suspect may be left
suffering for a crime they did not commit.
References
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for
reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253.
King, L., & Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a canadian interrogation room: An examination
of the reid model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36(7), 674–694.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., &
Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and
their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486.
Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the Effectiveness of
Suspect Interrogations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(November),
211–233.
Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kelly, C. E. (2018). Accusatorial and information-gathering
interview and interrogation methods: a multi-country comparison. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 24(9), 935-956.
White, W. S. (2003). Confessions in capital cases. U. Ill. L. Rev., 979.
Advice 2: Use of False Evidence.
False evidence ploys (FEPs) are when police present the suspect with fabricated evidence
(such as claiming that an eyewitness saw them at the crime scene). The most prominent
reason to not use FEPs are that they can lead an innocent suspect to be wrongfully
convicted either due to them confessing to a crime they did not commit or by failing to
provide enough of a counter argument against this “evidence”. This can occur because the
innocent suspect knows that they are innocent and they believe that juries will be able to see
this too, despite the presence of contradicting evidence. This leads them making no attempt
to dispute any false evidence as they know they didn’t do it. On top of this, if an FEP is used
against an innocent suspect, it may cause them to believe that they must have committed
the crime (due to the idea that evidence is solely objective and honest), leading to
manipulation of memory, ethical issues and false confessions. Jury studies have found that
the mere presence of a confession (coerced or not) is enough to convince them that the
suspect is guilty. Ultimately, FEPs should never be used in an investigative interview as they
are immoral, ineffective and lead to wrongful convictions.
A false evidence ploy (FEP) can be described as an instance whereby a police officer claims
to have or presents fabricated evidence to a suspect such as an eyewitness testimony or
