The Court Of Public Opinion

Most of the police share of conflict, adversarial methods of interviewing, along with an assessment of non-verbal behavior (body language) to solicit confessions and admissions.

But these methods are not successful in a large percentage of cases.

Consider the following:

At least 50% of the interview methods are taught the police currently non-productive (Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond).

or Law EnforcementOfficial score no better opportunity to assess (50/50) on the question to the body language of truth or deception (Ekman and O'Sullivan).

Or the police put blind faith in the principles for judging deception lawyer analyzing body language (Gudjonsson).

Obtain or success rates published confessions or admissions officers, with a confrontational approach that less than 40% average (Gudjonsson, Baldwin, Leo).

So why continue to use methodsand principles that are not very productive (better) or counterproductive (at worst)?

Especially because this is what we have been taught basic training in law enforcement and was in use over time.

The accusation has been compared to the formation of large to create a. It takes time and enormous energy to begin to move the train and even moving, not stop. The train remains on the same track, because the switch is on a different tracka laborious process that takes time.

We know from scientific studies, researchers led by behavioral, officials linked the experience unspeakable polygraph examiners and law enforcement authorities that there are essentially two types of interviews used in law enforcement: the prosecution (comparison) approach (the primary) and History (non-confrontational approach) and used as a secondary approach.

We know from studies following the sametrue:

Most or the interview method employed in law enforcement are greater today is the accusation, (comparison) method, even if everyone shared, modern, show the slightest effect.

o The most productive method is the interview examines the narrative, subject-driven (non-confrontational) approach, but this method was not traditionally emphasized.

Apart from the fact that no interview comparison and conversation, interviewyou have a huge problem: It looks bad for the public.

If a member of the public, media, or vowed a high energy, confrontational interview, the net result seems to be a sense of coercion.

There are some techniques, the interview conversation in nature and a story to interview non-confrontational approach, which serve as very simple and very productive.

Also has the advantage of being "politically correct" when viewed by membersmedia and the public.