Jail inmates’ perspectives on police interrogation

Abstract

Few studies have examined police interrogation strategies from suspects' perspectives, yet assessing suspects' views about interviewer approaches could provide important insights regarding confession decision making. The current study is the first American survey to assess a diverse sample of adult jail inmates' views on police interrogation tactics and approaches. The study explored US jail inmates' (N = 418) perspectives about how police should conduct interrogations. Potential dimensionality among 26 survey items pertaining to police tactics was examined using exploratory factor analysis. Group differences according to demographic and criminological variables were also explored. Four factors emerged, conceptualized as Dominance/Control, Humanity/Integrity, Sympathy/Perspective-Taking, and Rapport. Respondents most strongly endorsed Humanity/Integrity and Rapport strategies and were unsupportive of approaches involving Dominance/Control. Gender differences emerged for Dominance/ Control and Humanity/Integrity, and Black respondents were more likely to value strategies related to Sympathy/Perspective-Taking. Suspects endorsed interrogation strategies characterized by respect, dignity, voice, and a commitment to the truth; they reported aversions to the false evidence ploy and approaches involving aggression. Overall, results from this incarcerated sample suggest that interviewees may be more responsive to rapport-building, non-adversarial strategies.

How guilty and innocent suspects perceive the police and themselves: suspect interviews in Germany

“…suffering from fear, stress, and sleeplessness). In line with this, Cleary and Bull (2018) found that 418 inmates in the United States most strongly endorsed the factor Humanity/Integrity followed by the factors Rapport and Sympathy/Perspective‐Taking, but disaffirmed the factor Dominance/Control when asked how the police should interview suspects.…”

“…In general, this holds true when surveying inmates (e.g. Cleary & Bull, 2018) but also police investigators (e.g. Kassin et al, 2007), who are both central participants in the interview interaction.…”

“…Only a few studies have examined the suspects’ perspective on interviewing (e.g. Cleary & Bull, 2019; Holmberg & Christianson, 2002; Kebbell, Alison, Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2010). However, none of these considered the reported guilt or innocence status of the suspects.…”

Detainee and layperson’s expectations and preferences regarding police interview rooms

“…We collected data from two groups–the general population as well as from current detainees. We gathered responses from current detainees because they are the most representative of the ‘target’ individual during investigative interviews [ 14 ]. While majority of the research on interview strategies have relied on police investigator’s data [ 15 – 17 ] few studies have examined detainees’ perspectives (see 9 , 14 , for exceptions).…”

“…We gathered responses from current detainees because they are the most representative of the ‘target’ individual during investigative interviews [ 14 ]. While majority of the research on interview strategies have relied on police investigator’s data [ 15 – 17 ] few studies have examined detainees’ perspectives (see 9 , 14 , for exceptions). Gathering information from the target population is essential, as cooperation is ultimately the suspect’s decision, researchers must then also examine what suspects think of the interview to obtain a more complete picture of what occurs in the interview room [ 14 ].…”