Analysis of Reid & McDonald Interview Techniques in American Law Enforcement

The Reid technique, when used properly, satisfies two major criteria in interviews. For any technique to be effective enough it must persuade a guilty suspect to tell the truth but not so powerful that it would cause an innocent person to confess (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). The Reid technique attempts to reduce the perceived consequences of telling the truth without having the investigator offer a promise of leniency for a confession. Instinctively, criminal suspects’ deception is motivated to avoid the consequences of telling the truth (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). The consequences that a suspect may face could include jail time, separation from family, paying fines, and other real consequences. The suspect may also feel personal consequences like embarrassment and shame (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). Investigators who are educated on the Reid technique are aware of this and can alter their approach during an interview. For example, an investigator should never tell a suspect “you messed up big time, you will get at least 20 years for what you have done”. If a suspect is fearful of jail and a lengthy sentence, why would he tell the investigator anything?  Instinctively, human beings typically only do things to benefit themselves or others. I have found it usefully to try to relate to the suspect and why he would commit a certain crime, just as the Reid technique describes. The Reid technique encourages the reinforcement of the guilty suspect’s own justification for his crime (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). A focus on the suspects' "victim mentality" might encourage the suspect to confess even though there is no logical justification for committing the crime.

The Reid technique is further broken into 9 steps of interview. These include direct positive confrontation, theme development, stopping details, overcoming objections, getting the suspect’s attention; the suspect quiets and listens, alternatives, bringing the suspect into the conversation, and the confession. Step one, direct positive confrontation, would include presenting evidence to the suspect and telling the suspect they are involved in a crime (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). The behavior of the suspect should be studied and this is the beginning stage to any interview. The second step, theme development, would include providing justifications for the suspect to commit a crime (Gudjonsson, 2003). Just as mentioned earlier, this is relating to the suspect and his state of mind during the commission of the suspected crime. The third step involves the suspect quitting denials which could indicate probable guilt, followed by the fourth step of overcoming objections (Gudjonsson, 2003). The fifth step of getting the suspect’s attention is a very important step. This involves physical closeness and the use of verbal techniques to command attention (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). For example, if a suspect is showing signs that they are not listening the investigator may turn and face the suspect closer and attempt to make eye contact. This process involves removing any barriers between the suspect and the investigator, like a table in the interview room. By presenting open nonverbal gestures, the investigator might open up a dialog with the suspect. The sixth step is when the suspect quiets and listens, usually showing signs of surrender (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). Step seven is alternatives followed by step eight of bringing the suspect into the conversation. This step involves encouraging the suspect to freely talk about any aspect of the crime (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). The final step is the confession. At this point the verbal statements of the suspect are usually recorded (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998).
Unlike the Reid technique, the McDonald tactic involves violating suspects’ rights during interviews. McDonald states that the simplest method to break people is to severely limit their food intake or refuse them food (Gudjonsson, 2003). I believe that this technique is illegal and violates the rights of the accused. From my experience, I have learned that a $5 meal and showing acts of kindness go farther than intentionally starving a suspect during an interview. By opening the interview with some humanity, the suspect might open up to you and trust might be established. This earned trust can be used to the investigators advantage, if the investigator is skilled at interviews.

While the Reid technique has survived legal scrutiny for more than 50 years in the United States, it also must adhere to judicial decisions. This involves legal rights that a suspect has and the advisement at the proper times of the Miranda rights. This is why the McDonald tactics should never be practiced. The McDonald tactics involve borderline torture techniques that should never be practiced in the criminal justice system.

While each human is different and their behaviors are different, each investigator should take these considerations into play when conducting an interview. Over time, skilled investigators use several different techniques to obtain a confession. While opponents of the Reid technique argue that it is unfair, it is still a very effective tool for investigators. It should be noted that some guilty suspects will confess within 5 minutes and some will never confess. Every suspect should be interviewed according to what the lead investigators believe is the best personal method. Textbook methods although are descriptive and great, are not always applicable under every circumstances. 

References

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. Wiley, England, 2003.

Jayne, B. & Buckley, J. (2004). The Reid Technique of Interrogation. Retrieved from http://www.reid.com/educational_info/canada.html on 07/07/2010.

Zulawski, D. & Wicklander, D. (1998). Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, 1998.