Assignment 2: RA 2: Written Report

Introduction

Interrogation is described as the process of interviewing an individual or suspect to obtain valuable and reliable information from them. It can also be referred as questioning which is mainly employed by the intelligence agencies, military personnel, and law enforcement officers. The main aim of interrogation is to elicit beneficial and relevant information. Interrogation can also be a way of a question that can be systematically and formally. Also, examination usually involves an array of methods or techniques such as torture, mind-altering drugs, Reid technologies, pride-and-ego down, good cop/bad cop, suggestibility, and deception which ranges from developing of rapport with the focus to the outright torture. Therefore, the paper will discuss one technique of interrogation which is deception.

Part One

Individuals or suspect usually tend toile to obtain some pardon or favor during an interrogation or not to disclose valuable information that is needed because they are afraid they will get into trouble if they do so (DePaulo, et al. 2003). Therefore, the most common cues or indicators of deception in behavioral posturing and verbal responses that have the greatest validity include speech behaviors which can also be called para verbal behaviors such as the pitch of voice, response latency or wording (DePaulo, et al. 2003). The second indicator of deception is facial indicators such as smiling or eye contact, finally is the body movement such as leg circulation and gesture.

Hence there is three primary theoretical approach that usually answers the question as to why the nonverbal behavior of the liar usually gives them away. First is the emotional approach which is also called the effective approach. Most of the emotions which are associated with deception include excitement, fear and guild (Granhag and Vrij, 2005). For example, someone who is lying may be afraid of being caught later. Secondly, is the cognitive complexity approach which is where a liar needs to avoid contradiction and remember what they earlier said, to declare the same when they are asked to repeat. Finally, is the attempt control approach. I emphasizes that most lira is concerned with the fact that their lies may be detected by (Vrij, 2000). Here they will try so hard to make a compelling impression so that they are not caught. Hence the approaches suggest that presence of print management, content complexity and signs of emotions can be an indication of deceit by a person.

Furthermore, there are more reliable verbal indicators to the deception that one can use to see if someone is lying or not. These signs include speech patterns were one may notice frequent pauses, clearing the throat, stuttering and a higher pitch in their tone (Zuckerman, et al. 1981). Secondly, is repeating questions were a liar may repeat the question back to create time to think and formulate the answers to give instead of giving straight answers. Thirdly is denial where the liar may try to build empathy by using defensive behaviors, making another person to feel guilty and rejection, for example, one might say here the suspect says “I would never lie” (Zuckerman, et al. 1981).  Fourthly, is trying to change the subject of the story. Here one may try and tell an individual story with no direction or lacks detail to divert the attention of the interrogator to another issue. Finally, the suspect may be unwilling to cooperate in providing valuable information.

Part Two

The juvenile is described as a young individual who is old enough that he or she can be considered as an adult. Therefore, they are usually not held responsible for most criminal acts. It is an individual who is under 18 years old. Juvenile delinquents are children who are between 10 and 18 years old, and they have violated the law, and they have committed delinquent acts. Once they are discovered by the law that they have committed these acts, they are usually taken into custody for interrogation or questioning. Some of the crimes that can make them questions include weapons, liquor law violation, robbery, disorderly conducts, theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft, vandalism and arson. Hence some of the factors that contribute to this kind of behavior by the juveniles include substance abuse, disadvantaged socioeconomic status, peer pressure, low school attendance and poor education.

Once the juveniles are in the interrogation room; they as tend to deceit to be left off the hook by the law enforcement (Granhag and Stromwall, 2004). Therefore, the three indicators of deception (speech behaviors, facial indicators, and body movement) have similar validity to the juvenile. It is because minors are not skilled enough to maintain their lie in their subsequent verbal statements (Granhag and Stromwall, 2004). Hence the adults can easily detect a lie from the juveniles. It is also because the juveniles usually tend to reveal all the information that will implicate them in their deception. Other when they lie will have very bigger smiles which are an indication of facial indicator to deception (Leech, et al. 2004). The juvenile also displays negative expressive behavior when they are interrogated. They can also show body movement to indicate a lie such as pauses in speech, foot and leg movement and hand and leg movement. Also, the juvenile depending on the situation at hand, they may also display different behavioral cues to their deception that own to the feeling of excitement, guilt and fear (Leech, et al. 2004).

In conclusion, the professionals and the laypersons whose career is on detecting deception such as the judges, social workers, customs officers or the police have found it very difficult to distinguish juveniles who are lying and the ones who are telling the truth (Goodman, et al. 2006). Therefore, juvenile’s deception is in general seen a naturalistic lie-telling situation that cannot be easily be detected by their nonverbal behaviors but can be identified using juvenile verbal deceptions cues (Goodman, et al. 2006). Assignment 2: RA 2: Written Report

References

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74—118.

Goodman, G. S., Myers, J. E. B., Qin, J., Quas, J. A., Castelli, P., Redlich, A. D., et al. (2006). Hearsay versus children’s testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 363-401.

Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (Eds.). (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Deception detection. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.),Psychology and law. An empirical perspective (pp. 43-92). New York: Guilford Press.

Leach, A.-M., Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2004). “Intuitive” lie detection of children’s deception by law enforcement officials and university students. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 661-685.

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-60). New York: Academic Press.