Sample Criminal Law Essay Paper on Interviews and Interrogations Policy

Security Interviews and Interrogations

Interviews are quite different from interrogations because when law enforcement officer are interviewing suspects or witnesses a proper script must be prepared to guide the process. That is, the interviewer must prepare such points in bullet forms. In most cases the process of interviewing may not need evidence and the screening process cannot therefore be challenged. Based on location where security interviews are conducted, such places are often pleasant settings and are more comfortable to people as they can speak freely. Characteristically, in conducting security interviews the subject talks and the law enforcement office listens keenly while taking notes and major points.

In most cases enforcements officers conducting interviews are often led by the subjects who take charge of the entire conversation. Statements are clearly explained and clarified as one question potentially leads to the next. Interviews are not guided by checklists because the subjects have great control of what is being asked. Consequently, the process is soft in nature, the subjects is at ease, allows gathering of vital information and always comes before interrogation. Interviewers or law enforcement officers must conduct the process with great caution because there is a possibly of losing touch of an investigation if done hurriedly or inappropriately.

On the other hand, security interrogations are conducted by law enforcement officers in settings that are often more uncomfortable. For that, interrogations are conducted in places like police stations where suspects or witnesses feel pressed and challenged.  Unlike interviews, security interrogations are difficult to scrip and are not fluid because one cannot predict what the subject is likely to say (Clark The process of interrogation is highly intimidating; interrogators often have terrifying faces just to get information from suspects and witnesses. Interrogation procedures are characterized by shouting to scare suspects with consequences if they fail to provide required information.

To some extent, interrogators may not observe legal and ethical requirements; they may lawfully lie about evidence that is not there just to ensure that subjects confess. Characteristically, security interrogations are not controlled by subjects thus interrogators talk to them about their statements and assertions. Unlike interviews, one question does not lead to another because the conversations always flow with the direction of the mind both of the subject and the interrogator (Doug In security interrogation procedures, interrogation consistently put subjects under pressure to admit to certain degree of guilt. Interrogations are hard in nature and the subjects are often tensed because of the strange and uncomfortable environment in which such procedures are conducted.

Legal Issues Associated with Security Interviews and Interrogation

Major legal issues associated with interviews and interrogation includes confidentiality, integrity, ethics and privacy. From a legal point of view, security interviewers and interrogators must handle themselves with decorum and ensure that all legal and ethical requirements are observed during such procedures. Legally, previous false statements representing beliefs should not fall into category of interview and interrogation tactics. Therefore, clear distinctions must be observed between the interviewer and interrogator stating false statements in order to compel a witness or subject to admit to a certain assertion. This could jeopardize admission of such confessions in a court of law. For instance, interviewers and interrogators may at time lie to the subject that either a partner or an accomplice has already confessed. This is meant to compel the subject to admit yet it may be false and in the process one may admit or confess to falsehood. Studies have reported many cases where interrogators show fabricated report indicating that his DNA was recovered from the victim; this is used to intimidate a suspect to confess and provide valuable information to security personnel (Vessel

Moreover, it is important to note that all interviewers or interrogators must observe totality of circumstances guideline where tricks or deceit used in these procedures should not upset the conscience of the court or community. For instance, the guidelines prohibit interviewers and interrogators from impersonating a defense lawyer or a clergyman just to elicit and force a confession for conviction. Investigators should not cross the line by making inaccurate false statements to produce false evidence for convictions. Many courts today are more concerned of the fact that a lot of false evidence may find way into its chambers and thus jeopardize the integrity of evidentiary system in totality. In most cases deliberate falsehood statements and unrelated facts should be avoided during interrogations or interviews. Security personnel should not lie about legal, procedural and administrative issues even though certain level of false statements can be admissible as evidence.  The law also prohibits an investigator from eliciting a confession that in the process bends the legal guidelines and thus results to a suppressed confession.  Further, interrogators and interviewers should not express false opinions during an interrogation process as this may affect the credibility of case. However, to some degree an investigator can be allowed to express false opinions during the interrogations; however, this should not be overdone. Consequently, they are allowed to use visual props to obtain vital information, and can lie to a suspect as a last resort to obtain a confession.

Security Organization Policy

Purpose: The purpose of the policy is to provide legally sound guidelines that guide the process of interviews and interrogations.

Policy: The policy advocates that statements and confessions elicited during the process are vital for preparation of criminal cases. However, it stipulates that statements and confessions to be admitted as evidence must be provided voluntarily with due consideration to rights of the suspect. Therefore, interrogators must observe due process, constitutional rights and requirements to guard against charges that may result from intimidation.

Interviews and interrogations Guidelines: Interviews are to be conducted in comfortable settings as they are the main source of information.

Security professionals should observe due diligence and examine whether statements provided have certain degree level of truth.

When interviewing minors; obtain consent from parents, obtain warrant for the interview and observe constitutional rights.

When interviewing adults observe constitutional rights, administer Miranda warnings, invoke right to silence, invoke right to an attorney.

The policy advocates that to ensure successful interrogation and interview, security personnel should show empathy since this is a powerful tool that can ensure that crucial information is obtained.

At first, an interrogator should provide room for the suspects to interrogate themselves and give out false statements about their involvement in crime.

The policy stipulates that interrogators and interviewers must pay close attention to everything; both verbal and non-verbal cues should not be assumed.

 Also, interrogators should ensure that they conduct initial research about their suspects as this may ensure that they obtain valuable data likely to guide the process of interviews and interrogation.

Lastly, this security policy stresses on the need to obtain accurate and truthful information that is likely to convict a suspect in court.

Works Cited

Clark, W. Deception and its Detection: Crime & Clues. The Art and Science of Criminal

Investigation. 2013. [ONLINE] Available at: Accessed November 2, 2017.

Doug, W. Five tips for successful criminal interrogation. 2009. [ONLINE]

Available at: Accessed November 2, 2017.

Vessel, J. D. Conducting Successful Interrogations: Crime and Clues. The Art and Science of

Criminal Investigation. 2013. [ONLINE] Available at: Accessed November 2, 2017.