In regard to your request, this memorandum addresses how interviews are planned and done. There is also an in depth analysis of conducting an interrogation. The article also discusses the criminal history and the relationship involved.
The main purpose of an interview is to identify a criminal, to apprehend a criminal and to prove that the criminal is guilty in a court. During an investigation, a detective relies on three factors; information, instrumentation and interrogation. Instrumentation is where an investigator relies on scientific analysis of evidence. With this analysis a detective is able to identify a suspect. The information gathered is normally used in apprehending a criminal. In cases where there is no scientific evidence, interview and interrogation play a major role in investigation. Interviews are conducted in a comfortable atmosphere for the suspect, while an interrogation is normally done in a pressurizing atmosphere. Interrogation comes up as warfare; this art can be studied and perfected through experience. A good interrogator should have a proper knowledge of human psychology. Every interrogator should be able to act according to age and intellect; this is because of the different backgrounds of the suspects. Before conducting an interrogation, prior preparation should be made. An interrogator should have sufficient information of the suspect and the victim; this includes the suspects’ and the victim name, age profession and occupation. It is critical to have knowledge of the suspects and victim social and financial position. The interrogator should have a thorough knowledge of both the suspects and the victim’s criminal history. The interrogator should know the extent of the criminal relation with the victim. It is important for the interrogator to have a prior knowledge the time of the crime occurrence and the place. The interrogator should have all the information gathered and any scientific evidence collected. The place of interrogation could be at the scene of apprehension or an interrogation room; this is advantageous for the interrogator. The time of interrogation should be as soon as the suspect is apprehended. This is to avoid derailing of information. An interrogator should put in mind that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty in a court. The interrogator should be careful not to use a third degree of speech. An interrogator should maintain courtesy during the interview. A good interrogator should be a good listener to get all the information right. In case an interrogator is easily angered, he or she should first manage anger to avoid loosing reasoning. An interrogator should be reasonable enough to avoid incorrect judgment. An interrogator should never be in a hurry to finish the interview. An interrogator should have a proper classification of criminals.( Daniels 1997). This is normally classified into emotional and non emotional offenders. This is vital in order to plan for the approach to use during the interrogation. An emotional offender is normally a first time offender. In this case an interrogator should be empathetic. Showing sympathy to an emotional offender leads to easy interrogation. Friendliness with the criminal should be highly upheld. An interrogator should be keen to study the physical reactions of an offender. A tense person is usually lying. For emotional offenders, the truth comes easily when confronted with evidence. For non emotional offenders, they are normally not first time criminals; therefore, the approach should be different from the emotional offenders. The non emotional offenders should be approached with a question an answer method. A non emotional offender should be given time to tell his or her side of the story. An interrogator should use an alibi approach; this is where the suspect is asked where he was at the time of the crime. Other approaches towards interrogating a hardened criminal include; factual method, this is where an interrogator approaches a suspect with physical evidence. For sweet and sour method, this involves two interrogators, where one is harsh and the other lenient. In overheard conversation method, a suspect is normally told that another suspect has already confessed the crime. For hypothetic situation approach, a suspect is asked to give a view of how he would have done the crime in a different way. There is also telling the story backward approach and bluff method where the interrogator tells the suspect that there is enough evidence against him, for him to tell the truth. . Which ever approach is used, any information obtained is not final until the evidence is produced. An interrogator should have prior research about the relationship of the suspect and the victim. According to research 73% of suspects normally know their victims very well (Mary 2004) .In whichever approach the interrogator use. Every interrogator should have a well laid structure to conduct an interview easily.
These are the general prior plans of interviews and interrogations. I believe the information will be useful in guiding the new class of detectives.