The objective of this book is to review the position of investigative interviewing in a variety of different countries, with different types of criminal justice systems, and consists of chapters written by leading authorities in the field, both academics and practitioners. A wide range of often controversial questions are addressed, including issues raised by the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Reid model for interviewing and miscarriages of justice, the role of legislation in preventing bad practice, the effectiveness of ethical interviewing, investigative interviewing and human rights, responses to miscarriages of justice, and the likely future of investigative interviewing. The book also makes comparisons between British and American approaches to detention without trial, and the role of confession evidence within adversarial legal systems. It also develops a set of proposals to minimise the risks of miscarriages of justice, irrespective of jurisdiction.
Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, Regulation, published in Volume 51, Issue 31 of PsycCRITIQUES The Ethics, Practice, and Behavioral Science of Investigative Interviewing: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go After Abu Ghraib? A review of Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, and Regulation Reviewed by Mark H. Waugh The first International Conference on Police Interviewing was held in Quebec, Montreal, Canada, in February 2004. The conference was designed to bring together researchers and practitioners from around the world interested in investigative interviewing. The chapters in Tom Williamson's edited volume, Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, and Regulation, are based on presentations made at the conference. As noted in the text, a few months after the conference, pictures of prisoner maltreatment in Abu Ghraib by American military personnel were released, thundering across the world stage, and subsequently, similar behavior by British soldiers also has been revealed. Further revelations by media, professional journals, and the International Committee of the Red Cross have implicated medical and mental health professionals' participation in detainee maltreatment in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo), and Afghanistan (Keram, 2006). The rather esoteric province of investigative interviewing and interrogation consequently is at the dead center of passionate calls for professional stricture by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Associationâ€”as well as of mounting public concern. Williamson's volume offers considered and scholarly statements on investigative interviewing in law enforcement and national security settings. Accordingly, this book contributes mightily to the ongoing professional debate by providing information and reason, as opposed to reactive emotion. The Scope of the Book Contributing authors hail from the United States (nine), United Kingdom (six), Canada (two), and Australia (one). Although the book features an international cast, British and American military and criminal justice systems are the focus. Several authors distinguish between interviewing and interrogation. In the criminal justice and security context, interviewing refers to data gathering from witnesses and victims, whereas interrogation applies to questioning of suspects, often involving some degree of confrontation. At other times, the term investigative interviewing is used inclusively to cover both interviewing and interrogation. The range of topics is broad: interviewing of Al-Qaeda-related suspects, the psychology of interrogations and confessions, critical review of police interrogation techniques, research on the detection of deception, confessions of sex offenders, the psychology of rapport in interrogations, and the recovered memory debate are represented. Building on Arendt's (1970) famous thesis about the â€œbanality of evilâ€ arising from her coverage of Adolf Eichmann's trial in 1960, the volume features an essay on the â€œbanality of tortureâ€ and a hard-hitting account of American interrogation methods in the war on terror by the journalist David Rose. Several chapters specifically consider human rights, regulatory issues, and the implementation of ethics into training and practice in criminal justice settings. The authors include research, clinical, and forensic psychologists; police and criminal justice professionals; military and national security professionals; an attorney; an investigative journalist; and an ethicist. Therefore, a broad perspective is represented within the text, and the chapters vary in degree of emphasis on applied technique, scientific research, legal and ethical matters, and writing style, befitting the diverse backgrounds of the contributors. Collectively, several critical themes emerge from this useful text. Briefly, these include the following: 1. Relevant ethics, law, and regulation are indispensable for practice. 2. Research and practice have shown that investigative interviewing produces more reliable and accurate information if rapport and relationship factors are emphasized (as opposed to coercion). 3. Scientific study of factors related to false confessions and other problems in investigative interviewing requires further development. 4. Professional and institutional boundaries for those involved in investigative interviewing in law enforcement and military operational environments require articulation and safeguards. After Abu Ghraib, the subject of this book has become emotional and even notorious in some quarters. The military, criminal justice and professional groups, and individuals are voicing strong opinions. The distinguished psychiatrist and social thinker Robert J. Lifton (2004), for example, stresses the singular importance of the medical professional's conscience, owing to the time-honored social role as healer, and its need to be internalized, institutionalized, and inviolate. Lifton likened Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to an â€œatrocity-producing situationâ€ in which social and psychological pressures (such as power, insularity, lack of accountability, stress, and dehumanizing the other) lead to abuse, and he argued the involvement of medical professionals fosters legitimacy within these situations. Similarly, several chapters in Investigative Interviewing draw upon the social psychological concepts of obedience to authority and deindividuation straight from the classic studies of Milgram and Zimbardo, which evocatively demonstrated that the sway of group pressure, emotion, and polarized, â€œus-versus-themâ€ thinking can subvert the behavior and values of ordinary people. The Abu Ghraib and Gitmo situations are graphic and disturbing, but moreordinaryâ€ abuses, such as false confessions extracted by coercion, occur in criminal justice settings. Several authors in Investigative Interviewing address pathways to error and impropriety. Scientific and technical aspects of these errors are noted, such as ignoring subject variables (e.g., intellectual level, cultural background, communication style) and interviewer vulnerability (e.g., cognitive distortion, personal feelings, and institutional pressures), which subvert accuracy and professionalism. The chapter by Kassin cites the infamous Central Park jogger case of 1989 in New York City, in which five boys were wrongly convicted of the attack, sentenced to prison, and in 2002 exonerated by the independently corroborated confession of another individual, backed by DNA evidence. Kassin warns that innocent people are often targeted for interrogation, some interrogation techniques frequently produce false confessions, and authorities have difficulty discerning false from accurate confessions. The Larger Context Williamson argues a militarization of criminal justice procedures has occurred post-September 11, 2001. He cautions that human rights are prone to erosion during times of national emergencies, and in our age of globalization, policing is also becoming privatized, as in private security contractors in Iraq and elsewhere, who may not subscribe to the same values and codes of ethics of police and soldiers.And, they are less clearly governed by existing laws and regulations. In a similar vein, Matthew and Shambaugh (2005) analyzed how modern democracies respond to terrorism. They note that democracies swing back and forth like a pendulum, first tightening civil liberties, and then relaxing over time. The United States and United Kingdom appear to be demonstrating this course in its reaction to September 11, 2001. These larger, contextual factors must be considered in understanding and addressing the subject of investigative interviewing in law enforcement, military, and national security applications. How did the alleged abuses of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib develop? There were many conduits to these â€œatrocity-producing situationsâ€ (Lifton, 2004). They span the personal, situational, institutional, professional, legal, and national and international climates. Chapters by Rose and by Pearse describe some pathways. Pearse argues that the assignment of Major General D. Miller to Gitmo in November 2002, with a mandate to increase the amount of extracted intelligence from detainees, signalled devolution in the situation. General Miller reportedly also visited and advised the operation of Abu Ghraib. Pearse notes that in the press for results, the critical professional boundaries between guard and interrogator were relaxed and blurred. Thus, prison guardsâ€™ roles expanded to include the â€œsoftening upâ€ and preparation of detainees for interrogation. The situation began to replicate portions of Zimbardo's famous prison experiment on a massive scale. The chapter by Rose describes many missteps along the slippery slope to the atrocity-producing situation. These illustrate the tragic results of ignoring the four central themes from Williamson listed above. For but one example, Rose cites the use of marginally skilled interpreters, translators, and interrogators in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, who were placed under strong pressure to produce actionable results. Rubenstein, Pross, Davidoff, and Iacopino (2005), writing about the challenge to medical ethics attendant on the use of coercive interrogation policies within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), specifically cited numerous decisions within the DoD and the U.S. government to relax proscriptions on interrogation practices, perhaps most notably including the formal determination by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales that the terms of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees in the war on terror. Thus, reinterpretation of the roles of medical and health professionals in interrogations occurred. Moreover, Rubenstein et al (2005) believe the DoD's recently revised ethical standards for health care professionals continue to permit relaxed and expanded roles for participation in interrogation practices, and they run counter to domestic and international law and treaties. As Williamson discusses, the post-September 11 war on terror mindset has spawned an â€œends justifies the meansâ€ approach, which has been officially sanctioned and institutionalized. Moghaddam (2005) used the metaphor of the â€œstaircaseâ€ to explain the psychological pathway to becoming a terrorist. At each step up the staircase, vulnerable individuals (by virtue of anger, disenfranchisement, deprivation, etc.) progressively narrow their options, externalize anger on outgroups, and become more likely to express terrorism. In many ways, Moghaddam's staircase metaphor mirrors the devolution to the atrocityproducing situation. A process of â€œdehumanizationâ€ (Bandura, 1998) or â€œdemonizationâ€ (White, 2006) of the other underpins the actions of the terrorist and those who commit an atrocity, and they both progressively approach their final actions aided by insularity and influenced by feelings of power, certitude, and situational social dynamics. A central theme with all contributors to Investigative Interviewing is the importance of rapport, relationship, and empathy in investigative interviewing. This includes awareness of one's countertransference feelings for the subject, attempting to understand the unique cultural, social, and personal background of the subject, and demonstrating respect for the subject under interrogation. The skilled and deliberate use of empathy serves multiple goals. As several contributors note, not only does a relationship and rapport-based approach produce more accurate and reliable results in investigative interviewing, empathy directly counters the all-too-human dehumanization forces that underpin investigative interviewing gone awry. Lifton (2004) also subscribed to this thesis regarding the atrocity producing situation. The renowned scholar of war John Keegan (1993) has shown that war has been and is part of the human condition. Keegan discussed the honored role of the warrior in societies throughout history. Soldiers kill the enemy during war, but soldiers respect their counterparts as fellow warriors. Mutual identification with the warrior role humanizes and elevates combat, and the Geneva Convention, I suggest, institutionalizes respect for the humanity of warriors. As official U.S. government policy splits hairs over which combatants deserve protection under Geneva, the slippery slope of dehumanizing the other (warrior) was underfoot. To assert the terrorist is neither criminal nor enemy but occupies a special, lower category starts the process of dehumanizing the other. Professional and Ethical Conundrums The profession of medicine appears to be calling for renewed and tighter ethical safeguards, if not proscription, regarding participation in coercive interrogation (Keram, 2006; Lifton, 2004; Rubenstein et al., 2005). From psychology, APA's (2005b) Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) represents a vanguard effort to integrate professional issues and human rights, and it articulates suggestions regarding roles, ethics, and standards for the participation of psychologists in interrogations. The PENS report reaffirms APA's (1986) Resolution Against Torture and the relevance of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2002; see also APA Web site version at http://www.apa.org/ethics/), and it asserts 12 principles that may guide psychologistsâ€™ participation in national security work.Among these principles are imperatives that information from the medical record may not be used to the detriment of an individual; interrogation consultant and health care roles are inconsistent and may not be confounded; recognition that the subject of interrogation â€œmay not have engaged in untoward behavior and may not have information of interestâ€ (p. 7); awareness of the unique settings and, at times, cultural backgrounds of subjects; and consultation follows what is â€œsafe, legal, and ethical.â€ The PENS report reflects the four overarching themes of Investigative Interviewing listed above. However, other psychologists call for stronger official APA positions and strictures against psychologistsâ€™ participation in national security interrogations, particularly where coercive practices may have occurred, including organizational and legal responses regarding those involved in recent high profile events (APA, 2005a). The rush to judgment is a universal human weakness. Before official APA policy and personal judgments are levied, adequate information and reason are required, lest our good intentions risk sanctimony. And, such temptations should defer to the truism that the devil is in the details. It should also be noted that the second International Conference on Police Interviewing will be held in Portsmouth, England, in July 2006, and the DoD advisory Defense Science Board reportedly will soon release a position statement on the science behind interrogation. More details for deliberation will emerge. In the meantime, Williamson offers an excellent platform for consideration of the complexities of investigative interviewing from perspectives of science, practice, and ethics. Investigative interviewing is a specialized activity practiced by professionals in diverse criminal justice, national security, and military environments. Ewing and Gelles (2003) articulated ethical concerns in forensic consultation in matters of suspected espionage, terrorism, and other crimes of national significance. In particular, they suggested that the psychologist should use a critical ethical balancing test. This involves balancing the ethical harm to an individual of deception, for example, with the potential harm to multitudes (e.g., national security) of not assisting in matters of espionage and national security. Presciently, Ewing and Gelles also specifically warned of the dangers of post hoc judgments by professional organizations against mental health professionals who have participated in national security consultations. Similarly, Morgan et al. (2006) discussed and recommended ethical concepts for the mental health professional providing consultation to government agencies, particularly in indirect assessment of suspects. Morgan et al. (2006) emphasized the consultant must exercise professional judgment and not be unduly influenced by the organization; be cognizant of the limits of one's competence; and recognize the client is the agency, not the individual being evaluated. Greenberg and Shuman's (1997) classic distinction between therapeutic and forensic roles of the mental health professional is echoed by many who grapple with the subject at hand (APA, 2005b; Ewing & Gelles, 2003; Morgan et al., 2006). Morgan et al. (2006) asserted that no doctor-patient relationship or informed consent apply in indirect assessments conducted in consultation with a government agency, analogous to behavioural consultation on a hostage negotiations team. The overarching ethical charge is to engage a balancing test regarding potential harm to the individual versus society. The DoD has developed and used advisory Behavioral Science Consultation Teams, distinct from those serving in a health care capacity, in interrogation settings. This matter is controversial and remains conceptually and ethically complex. Although by June 2004 the DoD reportedly prohibited Behavioral Science Consultation Teams professionals from use of the medical record, Rubenstein et al. (2005) nonetheless cautioned that medical and mental health professionals who consult in these settings may communicate legitimacy to coercive situations, consistent with Lifton's (2004) concern. The PENS report recognized the importance of the boundary between consulting and treating roles, protecting the medical record from use in interrogation, and the imperative of not abetting â€œtorture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatmentâ€ (p. 4). Where Do We Go From Here? Consistent with Morgan et al. (2006), I suggest professional organizations, professionals, and citizens exercise caution in formulating responses about interrogation practices. Reaction to the viscerally alarming revelations of Abu Ghraib, for example, may invite hasty judgments that risk throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. If psychologists and psychiatrists do not participate in investigative interviewing in national security and law enforcement settings, others will. These others, I suggest, undoubtedly will have less training, scientific knowledge, humility, and investment in professional ethics as a guide to conduct. Before admonishing participating mental health professionals, a mindful pause may help. Remember Matthew and Shambaugh (2005)â€˜s thesis that democratic societies alter conceptions of civil rights in response to terrorism. We all have and do participate in these societal shifts; we are all complicit. Terrorism, by its very nature, incites strong, destabilizing emotional reactions. The era of global and instantaneous media amplifies the power of terrorism. The famous journalist Edward R. Murrow (1954), unafraid to speak against demagoguery from any quarter, said, â€œNo one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.â€ The proper response to terrorism, as with any visceral shock, is to collect ourselves and reestablish equanimity, perspective, and the long view. Accordingly, as we try to formulate realistic and ethical guidelines for mental health professionals who consult on investigative interviewing, let us not duplicate a dehumanizing ingredient of the atrocity making situation within our own fold by yielding to polarized, â€œus-themâ€ thinking. We cannot afford an eclipse of wisdom. Finally, it is worth remembering the particulars of our time and place in history narrow our views. The aim of restricting or prohibiting the participation of medical and psychological professionals in interrogation activities on ethical grounds stems from a largely North American and European perspective. Many regions of the world do not necessarily subscribe to this separation of professionalsâ€™ participation in national security activities. Our concepts of what constitutes abuse or torture in interrogations also change over time. As many contributors in Investigative Interviewing note, empathy is the universal bridge between people, and properly applied empathy demonstrably improves the results of investigative interviewing. Similarly, Jimmy Carter (2005) decried the divisive rift of the so-called â€œredâ€ and â€œblueâ€ contemporary politicization in the United States. Carter believes we are more alike than different, and empathy represents the road to rapprochement. If we remember empathy and draw on the information, reason, and guidance of material such as within Williamson's volume, we will find our way on this difficult terrain.