Reference no: EM133809438

Question

When taking into account any legal and ethical considerations, it is important to avoid certain approaches in the Direct Positive Confrontation Step. In Direct Positive Confrontation, we noted that this is when the investigator informs the suspect of their belief that they were involved in the crime, and shows the suspect that the investigator is aware of any evidence against them (Inbau, Reid, Buckley & Jayne, 2013). This is why it is important to not show any hostile or aggressive behavior towards the suspect. This could make them angry or upset, and could make them feel targeted. It is also important to make sure that we remember that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty, so we should not attack them with accusations or pressure the suspect, which could potentially make them not want to talk anymore. Presuming guilt prematurely can lead to a conflict and silence the suspect rather than helping us get the information we need. Since we will be conducting an interrogation as previously stated, legally we are obligated to inform them of their Miranda rights and respect their rights throughout the questioning. If the suspect chooses to remain silent or ask for an attorney, it is important that we respect that and follow it.

Step three of Reid's Nine Steps is handling denials (Inbau et al., 2013). The goal of this step is to address the suspect's denial and objections and move the interrogation further. Suspect number one, John Doe, leans towards me and almost yells, explaining that he had nothing to do with the armed robbery. He becomes flushed and looks me in the eyes and denies any involvement in the robbery. This response could tell me a number of things. His verbal and non-verbal body language both shows me that he is anxious and stressed out about the questioning. It also shows that he may be feeling like he is being attacked and accused of something, that he may or may not have done. There are a couple things to take note of, the immediate defensive reaction could be a mechanism he developed in his personal life, and he could be stressed out over numerous things and is now feeling like he is accused of something he did not do. This, as well as the flushing of his eyes, also shows that he could be quick to anger. Eye contact is a good thing to look out for, as a lot of people usually tend to avoid eye contact when they are lying. This could potentially show that the suspect is not lying, but is scared and angry over the situation. From here, I would try to be understanding of his reaction, and explain that we are just following every lead we have and that he is not being targeted. I would also explain how any information he could give us would be helpful and that we are simply trying to understand the events and the cause of them. I would then explain that if he is innocent, the investigation will show that, and it would do the same if he is guilty (Inbau et al., 2013). This would show him that if he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about and hopefully calm him down.

For Joe Slick, he listens to the information I give him and then asks if it is okay for him to speak. He leans in and in a quiet voice, tells me that he had nothing to do with the crime. He explains that he is sorry that I am wasting my time with him and then he taps his foot. Joe Slick had a much more calm reaction than John Doe did, and him asking to speak shows his cooperation in the investigation. Though, noticing that he begins to tap his foot after speaking could show nervousness regarding the situation. Nervousness and stress is normal in these situations, as anyone would be nervous that they are being looked at for a crime, but it could also mean more. With Joe Slick, I would continue questioning and explain the same thing I did to John Doe, stating that if he is innocent, the investigation will show that. Continuing the questioning for both suspects, it is important to continue to take note of their reactions, tone, and body language throughout.