Drug use during interrogation is both ineffective and illegal. The Code of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Detention (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly as resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988)[7] prohibits „interrogation methods that impair judgment.” In addition, the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association, for example, prohibit the participation of doctors in interrogations. [8] Criminal proceedings refer to the entire judicial procedure for deciding claims against a person accused of violating criminal laws. The intent behind all criminal proceedings is known as the „presumption of innocence,” meaning that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Criminal law deals with conduct that is considered a criminal offence against society, the state or the public. This applies even if the victim is a single person. A person convicted of a crime may be forced to pay fines. In addition, they may lose their liberty by being sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment. Whether a person is charged with a serious crime or a minor crime, the accused always has the right to be tried, as well as certain other legal protections described below. As for how an interrogation can end, an undetained interrogation can be completed simply by leaving. If the police do not allow the person to leave the country, the interrogation is changed from an undetained interrogation to an interrogation, and the police must grant the interrogated person his Miranda rights. Evidence obtained directly as a result of unlawful questioning may not be used as evidence against an accused in court; In other words, it is inadmissible before the courts. In addition, evidence that would not have been obtained without the unlawful hearing may also be considered inadmissible at trial.
An attorney can inform you of your legal rights and options under your state`s specific laws and provide you with the necessary legal advice to avoid incriminating you during questioning. Your lawyer can also represent you in court if necessary. Legal and regulatory law, various precedents called „jurisdiction”, also affect interrogation techniques and procedures. One of the first attempts by British courts to establish guidelines for police officers interrogating suspects was the declaration of judges` rules in 1912 by judges of the King`s Bench Division in England. These rules, while not law, still carry weight in the United Kingdom and Canada. [26] The main objective of this technique is to study the extent to which the verbal and non-verbal characteristics of the behaviour of liars and truth-tellers change during repeated interrogations. Liars have been shown to show far fewer smiles, self-manipulation, pauses, and less aversion to the gaze than truth-tellers. According to Granhag & Strömwall, there are three approaches to nonverbal deceptive behavior. The first is the emotional approach, which suggests that liars change their behavior based on their own emotional feelings. For example, if a subject lies and starts to feel guilty, they will change their mind.
The second approach is the cognitive approach, which suggests that lying requires more thought than telling the truth, which can lead a liar to make more mistakes in language. Finally, the attempted control approach suggests that a subject who lies will try to be seemingly normal or honest and will try to adjust their behavior to make themselves credible. [4] Following Miranda v. According to Arizona`s decision, police are required to read to suspects the Miranda rights granted to them by the Fifth Amendment, such as the right to remain silent and the right to request counsel. If the police do not exercise Miranda`s rights, not all interrogation statements can be used as evidence in court proceedings. [32] President Barack Obama`s administration banned so-called expanded interrogations in 2009, and since March 2012, no country has openly admitted to deliberately mistreating detainees for interrogation. [24] [25] Deception can be an important part of effective interrogation. There is no law or regulation in the United States that prohibits the interrogator from lying about the strength of his or her case, making misleading statements, or implying that the person being questioned has ever been involved in the crime by someone else. See case law on deception and deception (Frazier v. Cupp).
[1] After the revelation of CIA-sponsored torture in the 1970s and the uproar that followed, the CIA largely ceased its own interrogations under torture. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, he „outsourced” these interrogations by transferring prisoners to Third World allies, often referred to as proxy torture. [16] But in the excitement aroused by the September 11 attacks, the US authorities set aside their scruples[17], legalized certain forms of interrogation by torture under euphemisms, such as „advanced interrogation techniques”[18] or „deep interrogations”[19], in order to gather information on Al-Qaeda from 2002. [20] Ultimately, the CIA, the U.S. military, and their contract employees tortured countless thousands of people at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and secret prisons scattered around the world, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee`s report on CIA torture and the bipartisan report of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.[21] [22] Whether these interrogations under torture provided useful information is hotly debated. [23] The Reid technique is commonly used by U.S. law enforcement officials for interrogation purposes. It includes steps to obtain confessions and methods to detect signs of deception in the suspect`s body language. The technique has been criticized for being difficult to apply across cultures and provoking false confessions from innocent people. [29] An example is described in the analysis of the January 2000 interrogation of 14-year-old Lorenzo Montoya by Denver police during their investigation into the murder of 29-year-old Emily Johnson. [30] Good cop/bad cop is a psychological tactic used in negotiations and interrogations in which a team of two interrogators takes seemingly opposite approaches to the issue.
[5] One engages in hostile or accusatory behavior and emphasizes threats of punishment, while the other engages in more sympathetic behavior and emphasizes reward for getting the subject to cooperate. [6] In the United States, police interrogations are conducted as part of an adversarial system in which police attempt to obtain documents that help convict a suspect rather than uncover the facts of the case. Various tactics are used for this purpose. [28] In the United Kingdom, questioning is governed by the Rules of Judges. If an officer has sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, he or she must notify the suspect. Once a suspect has been formally charged, he must be notified again before further interrogations can take place. Continental European countries give their police much more freedom to question suspects, but the power to detain a suspect is just as limited as in Anglo-American countries. See also arrest; Search and seizure.
Their techniques are also designed to prevent suspects from seeking legal help. Everyone accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. You have the constitutional right not to disclose information that the police can use against you, which can mean almost anything in the context of an interrogation. You can also request a lawyer at any time after the confrontation with the police, who will prevent or immediately end an interrogation. The use of torture as an investigative technique declined with the rise of Christianity, as it was considered „antithetical to the teachings of Christ,” and in 866, Pope Nicholas I banned the use of torture. practice. But after the 13th century, many European states such as Germany, France, Portugal, Italy and Spain began to return for religious inquisition and secular investigations into physical abuse. [10] In the 18th century, the growing influence of the Enlightenment led European nations to refrain from interrogations officially sanctioned by the state by torture.
In 1874, Victor Hugo could plausibly assert that „torture has ceased to exist.” But in the 20th century, authoritarian states such as Mussolini`s fascist Italy, Hitler`s Third Reich, and Lenin`s and Stalin`s Soviet Union resumed the practice, and on a large scale. [11] In the 2000s, a growing movement called for mandatory electronic recording of all detention interrogations in the United States. [33] „Electronic recording” describes the process of recording interrogations from start to finish. This is in contrast to a „recorded” or „recorded” confession, which usually contains only the suspect`s final statement. „Recorded interrogation” is the traditional term for this process; However, as the analogy becomes increasingly rare, laws and scholars refer to the process as an „electronic record” of interviews or interrogations. Alaska[34], Illinois,[35] Maine,[36] Minnesota,[34] and Wisconsin[37] are the only states that require recorded questioning. New Jersey`s application for registration commenced on January 1, 2006. [38] [39] Massachusetts allows jury instructions indicating that courts prefer recorded examinations. [40] FNeil Nelson of the St.
Paul Police Department, an expert in recorded interrogations,[41] described the Minnesota recorded interrogations as „the best tool ever forced down our throats.” [42] No.