Police Training Firm Dumps Interrogation Technique Linked To Multiple False Confessions
from the curbing-liability dept
There may be a significant shift in police interrogation methods over the next several years. The Marshall Project reports one of the nation's largest police consulting firms is abandoning a technique that has been used by a majority of law enforcement agencies over the last six decades. It's called the Reid Technique, and it's been linked to a large number of false confessions. But after fifty-plus years of religious reliance on the technique, the consulting firm says it's no longer going to be training officers to deploy it.
Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, a consulting group that says it has worked with a majority of U.S. police departments, said Monday it will stop training detectives in the method it has taught since 1984.
"Confrontation is not an effective way of getting truthful information," said Shane Sturman, the company's president and CEO. “This was a big move for us, but it's a decision that's been coming for quite some time. More and more of our law enforcement clients have asked us to remove it from their training based on all the academic research showing other interrogation styles to be much less risky."
It should have been viewed as risky from the beginning. The technique, first deployed in 1955 by a police polygraph expert named John Reid, uses nine steps to push arrestees towards confessions. It relies in part on officers making judgment calls on body language, when not encouraging them to directly lie to arrested subjects. The thing about the Reid Technique is that the first deployment in 1955, by Reid himself, secured a false confession. This resulted in a state supreme court decision tossing out the suspect's conviction on the basis the false confession had been coerced.
Despite this inauspicious start, the Reid Technique has remained popular pretty much everywhere, even as confessions secured with the technique are frequently proven to be false. Given its creator was deeply fond of polygraph testing, it should come as no surprise the confessions elicited by the technique would be dubious at best.
The company behind the technique claims it's still as useful as ever, if not even better given recent, unspecified "updates."
Joseph P. Buckley, the president of John E. Reid & Associates, which licenses the Reid method, said Wednesday that Wicklander-Zulawski’s announcement was “very misleading and disingenuous.” He said the technique has consistently held up in court and that it is not “confrontational” except when evidence already suggests the suspect’s guilt.
The technique relies on confrontation. It relies on officers lying about the amount of evidence they've gathered, making false claims about admissions from conspirators, or simply refusing to believe anything an arrestee says unless it agrees with their predetermined conclusions. It's a terrible system but it's been in use for years and no one's in a hurry to let it go -- especially when convictions and plea deals go on the immediate bottom line. Exonerations -- if and when they happen -- are years or decades down the road. They're someone else's problem on someone else's criminal justice ledger.
The sad thing is the Reid Technique was better than the interrogation technique it replaced: violent beatings. But all it did was shift the violence from the front of the house to back of the house, replacing beatings with a large number of easily-avoidable false confessions. After decades of ruined lives, a major player in law enforcement training has decided it's no longer interested in making police officers worse. That's a huge step forward.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: false confessions, good cop bad cop, police, reid technique
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dead perps, suspects, and bystanders tell no tales...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a shame so many innocent people have to suffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the state exists for one reason
the other arguments are violence and violence return TRUE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We thought phrenology would revolutionize police work, we've updated it, so the fact these other people claim it isn't accurate is just disingenuous!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
stop allowing it stop allowing cops and prosecutors to lie.
full stop
If you cannot convict someone on actual facts or very convincing circumstance STOP, because it becomes not prosecution it becomes persecution, no society that has any value can be constructed on persecution ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, really? 5 seconds of research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
"In 1906, Sinclair acquired particular fame for his classic muck-raking novel The Jungle, which exposed labor and sanitary conditions in the U.S. meatpacking industry, causing a public uproar that contributed in part to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.[1]"
There's other examples.
"If you cannot convict someone on actual facts or very convincing circumstance STOP, because it becomes not prosecution it becomes persecution"
Unless you changed the subject of your rant halfway through, you appear to have completely misunderstood or misrepresented the meaning of Sinclair's quote. Perhaps instead of whining about "liberals" you should understand what is being written?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It did, once they realized they could rearrange the bumps on any suspects' skull to match what the police wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jusr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jusr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just as a note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just as a note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reading between the lines ...
Now that cops are seen by the public as the lying, conniving, self-serving people that they really are, the textbook tactic of tricking suspects into confessing (falsely or not) in the interrogation room by lying to them is naturally going to be a much less effective technique, because suspects these days already *KNOW* that they're probably being lied to by the cops.
That's the real reason why the Reid Technique is being abandoned. It's not over concerns about its abusiveness, but because people today are much less easily fooled than in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reading between the lines ...
Gullibility leads to making a false confession - how does that work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reading between the lines ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like any other snake oil, it is pushed because it is profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems that the one thing that exonerates a trigger-happy cop of killing an unarmed innocent person, is whether or not he was following established procedure, and hence justified to take the life of an innocent person. So if anything it is the police procedures that are the guilty party, whether its shoot-to-kill rules or abusive interrogation techniques that draw false confessions.
But the for-profit companies that create these procedures and train cops in their use never seem to get nailed when they are ostensibly the liable party. Why is it that it's always the police (and hence the taxpayers) who get sued and pay out through the nose rather than these lucrative companies that are the very source of the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some of them are in jail.
Most of them cannot sustain the cost of a lawsuit, jail or no.
And as with the Juggalos case recently, just because someone tells the police something, doesn't mean the court will assign them liability when the police act upon that information. So the odds of winning are minimal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmm yes. It happens all the time that police arrest and interrogate when they DONT think they have evidence that suggests the suspect’s guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Secondly, you genuinely believe police don't arrest people unless they have actual evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License?
Since when can you license a method?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License?
Probably when it has a trademarked name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: License?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Years ago...
...Friday and Webb (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) came to my flat and interviewed me about an act of political vandalism they suspected me of committing.
I wasn't really a vandalism sort even then. (Though I've endorsed sabotage.) But at the end, when it was clear I was not going to confess, they told me they had videos of me doing it.
I said that's impossible as I wasn't ever at the scene of the crime, let alone there to engage in mischief. The videos must be of someone else.
Friday and Webb took their hats, bid me good day and I never saw them again.
Is that the technique? Lying about evidence and confronting people like it's the end of a Law & Order episode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Data?
I've searched and can't find a single hard number in this article. Waste of time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is one of the bits i found quite interesting.
Another point, i suppose, would have been for such client departments to refuse to pay for and attend such sessions. A whole other thing is, why the hell has so much been farmed out for so long anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]