But before this could be achieved, investigators had to go first through the process of discovering and identifying the criminal. Upon the offenders positive identification, law enforcers or investigators go the tedious process of locating the criminal and establish his responsibility over the crime before the court. In whatever stage the investigation may be in, whether in the process of identification, location, or court litigation, the investigator relies heavily on gathered information that could be extracted through techniques of interview and interrogation.
With the fast development of technology used in crime investigation, the method of interview and interrogation might be perceived as having of no use. However, investigators still continue to depend on these methods particularly on cases wherein there is scarce or no physical evidence to work on. II. Reasons for Conducting an Interview or Interrogation The basic reason for utilizing interview or interrogation is to obtain information. The endpoint would be for the investigator to bring a subject to admit or confess of having done a crime.
The objective of the entire course of investigation of course, is to arrive at the truth of the situation. Specifically, these are: ¢ Provoke the guilty to confess ¢ Allows the investigator to narrow down the list of suspected criminals ¢ To identify the facts and know the circumstances surrounding the crime ¢ To establish the identity of all those who are involved of the crime ¢ To gather information that would help locate physical evidence ¢ Gather information that would lead to hideouts, crime operations, organizations or individuals involved, especially crimes involving drug trafficking
¢ Gather information that could be used as reference for future investigation ¢ It is also utilized as a pre-test and post-test in conducting polygraph tests of suspected criminals (Aubry, Caputo. 1980) III. Difference Between Interview and Interrogation The nature or circumstances by which an interview and interrogation is used vastly differ, although the terms are frequently associated together. Interviews are carried out in a more genial atmosphere. The person from whom information is taken out is set to feel at ease.
It is assumed that when a person feels no anxiety or unthreatened by person questioning, the greater the tendency that a person would speak more and thus give out more information. An interview is usually used by an investigator towards a possible witness. On the other hand, when a person is subjected to sever psychological (and sometimes physical) pressure, placing the person in great discomfort, such method is called an interrogation. This is usually employed when the one being questioned is uncooperative.
The investigator uses psychological warfare, to gain control and force a confession over the person. Success in interrogation is achieved when the investigator has learned to skillfully practice it both as a technique and art. Conducting an investigation requires a good understanding of human behavior as well as knowing how to influence the situation by acting, since the person being questioned could range from a respected professional, a teenager, or even as young as a child.
It is highly relevant to the success of the case that the investigator know how to adapt to the varying demands of the circumstances. A. Methods of Interrogation In conducting interrogation, it is important that the subject be properly classified whether it is an emotional or non-emotional offender. The classification dictates the course of action that the investigator will undertake his approach towards the offender. ¢ Emotional Offender In carrying out an interrogation under this classification is much easier, compared to a non-emotional offender.
Often emotional offenders commit a crime out of passion, therefore most are first-time offenders. They are driven by strong emotions in committing the crime such as jealousy, lust, or anger. The investigator will find it easier to drive him to confession by dealing through his emotions. There are a variety of ways with which this can be done. The investigator primarily wins the confidence of the offender by demonstrating sympathy or compassion, and being pleasant where hostility was expected (i. e. giving a cup of coffee).
It is also vital that overt reactions towards the crime or any association, reference to it be closely observed. An emotional, first-time offender would less likely be good at hiding his emotions. When lying, his tension would easily be observable. The tension in his body will lead to dryness in the mouth. The offender might relieve himself of the tension by playing with his fingers or by tapping his foot. Frequently, lying goes with poor eye contact. When confronted by hard data proving his guilt, emotional offenders often break down for confession.