The Reid Technique

The process behind interrogating suspects.

By: Lizzy 9.2

Image: www.shutterstock.com

If you want to be a detective, or understand human language, or are simply just interested in the techniques of interrogation, then you are at the right place.

Interrogation is the process of asking questions. In a more serious case (e.g., criminal cases), interrogation is the process of asking a person for information about the subject. Interrogation techniques are used all the time by detectives, as the purpose of them is to lead to a confession of truth. It is easy to lie again and again, so detectives must use psychological techniques (interrogation techniques) to end the lies. It is important to note that, in using the techniques, the image should be looked at as a whole. Though that might not make sense now, we will go more on that later.

The Reid Technique, specifically, is a method held under controlled conditions that aims to make suspects confess their actions. In this, there are nine stages that occur:

1. Direct confrontation.

This makes the suspect acknowledge what piece(s) of evidence has led them to become a suspect. This can offer the suspect the chance to explain how and why the evidence exists. However, this method is not used often, as the suspect could make up a story to match the evidence and change it later. In most cases, the interrogator would hide the evidence and try to listen and build rapport with the suspect’s view before confronting the individual with the evidence where their stories do not match.

2. Theme development.

The interrogator tries to create a morale justification (aka. theme) where the blame is placed on someone or something else. Usually, the interrogator speaks in long batches as the suspect stays mostly. The justifications can differ to see which one is responsive to the suspect. However, these justifications should not promise any moral or psychological relief to the suspect.

3. Handling denials.

The interrogators should minimize that from happening by denying their denials with a statement to support their confrontation (e.g., “You might not remember, but you were there.”)

4. Overcoming objections.

When the denials do not work, the suspect is going to object to appear innocent (e.g. “I would never do that. I love her too much.”) The interrogator should accept these claims as if they were true, or else going against it would make the suspect not open up and damage the rapport built.

5. Procurement and retainment of the suspect’s attention.

During this time, the suspect is usually concerned about the punishment, as they are now not so confident to appear not guilty. The interrogators should try to avoid this from happening by closing the distance from them to the suspect.

6. Handling the suspect’s passive move.

The interrogator should intensify the theme and concentrate on the main reason what they (the interrogators) give as psychological justification. During this time, the interrogator should try to urge the suspect and keep the understanding and sympathetic behavior to tell the truth. If the suspect cries at this moment, then they are likely in a vulnerable position. At that point, refer to guilt.

7. Presenting an alternative question.

Assuming the suspect has chosen a valuable justification, the interrogator should supply one theme better than the other (e.g. “Did you plan all of this, or did you suddenly snap?”) The suspect is expected to choose the easier justification, however, whichever one they choose, they have now admitted to guilt.

8. Developing details of admission.

After the suspect has chosen a justification, to which they have done by admitting to guilt, the interrogator should then quickly respond with statements of reinforcement in acknowledge to the admission. The interrogator should go over the basics of what happened orally before continuing with more detailed questions.

9. Convert the oral confession to a written or record document.

After the suspect has finally opened up with a logical and explained motive and timeline of events, the interrogator should record the confession (either with tape, written, or video).

Critics question whether or not the Reid Techniques are false assumptions and merely assumptions of human behavior, suggesting that it is possible that the Reid Technique will lead to a false confession. However, the Reid Technique does not promote false confessions and in the case that one happens, it is usually caused by the interrogators engaging with the wrong behavior.

An aspect of the Reid Technique is to know when the suspect is in the act of deception. The idea is to look for verbal and non-verbal cues whether the suspect is lying. If the suspect is lying, they are often nervous and looking at the interrogator to see if the lie is valid. If the suspect is not looking at the interrogator, the interrogator should try to make eye contact nonetheless by directing and saying it to the suspect.

Now that there is one method for interrogation, it is also important to be attentive to the psychological behavior the suspect is presenting throughout the interrogation.

By pressuring the suspect (without harming the rapport), the suspect would likely be in a fight-or-flight mode. When the suspect is in the act of deception, they are more likely nervous than confident. Though there are many ways and methods of handling this situation, one famous method is to exhaust the suspect so that they will have a challenging time handling the detailed timeline, to which the suspect will ultimately mess up their story.

When a person is telling a lie for the first time, they are often not so confident, as they are not sure whether the interrogators find the lie acceptable or not. However, if the person knows that what they are saying is the truth, then they should have more confidence. Examples of verbal cues are when the person’s hands are down and synchronized with what they are saying, they are usually confident in what they are saying, as they know what they are saying is true. However, if their palms are faced up and overly gestured with what they are saying, they are often trying to deceive someone.

It is worth mentioning that when a lie is told multiple times, the person will gain confidence in their lie. Interrogators usually want the suspects to be nervous so that they (the suspects) may break down and trip over easier.

Another example is if the suspect is trying to curl up. The suspect can wish to appear small as possible as they are uncomfortable with the situation and wish to leave. However, as mentioned at the first paragraph, it is important to know that one indicator of deception may not be true. As a person trying to curl up may simply be cold, and one indicator of non-deception may not be true too, as if their palms are down, but what they are saying does not match up with their body language and what their saying, then it is likely that what they are saying may not be true.

And so, after reading all of that, next time when you ask if your siblings stole your cookie, or if you suspect that your partner might have been up to something, or you are planning to be a detective in criminal cases, you will not go in empty handed.