Interrogation Techniques
Warming-up.
In your own words try to explain the techniques used in interrogating:
Already Know
Authority and Power
Direct Question
Good Cop, Bad Cop
Informality
Lie Detectors
Silence
Sympathy
Read the following text and check if your ideas of the notions mentioned above were right.
Make sure you understand the meaning of the following words and word-combinations:
multiple techniques
an accomplice of the person being interrogated
to pull the trigger
to release of pent-up tension
the relevant symbols
to use floppy language
to be assertive
the vested authority
neutral voice
military environments
subtle methods
to be highly undesirable
to carry out the threat and credibility
to use instruments of torture
to go through terrible pain rather than give in.
debilitation
deprivation
a powerful trust-building activity
to stare at
to be accustomed to
Interrogation Techniques
There are multiple techniques employed in interrogation. Let us look at some of them.
Already Know
The idea is to convince the person that you already know what you are asking of them. Show them how much you know of their background and activities. Indicate that there is much more that you also know. Let them think you are all-knowing and all-seeing. Make a big show of how you discovered this. For example, tell them that you have already been told this by somebody else, perhaps an accomplice of the person being interrogated. Watch closely their response to this news. They will react slightly differently if you are telling the truth or otherwise.
Example
-Michael, I've got to tell you that Sidney has just confessed and told us all about how you pulled the trigger. It was you, wasn't it?
When the person believes that you already know what they are trying to conceal, the act of confession goes from one of betrayal, perhaps of others or one's principles, to a simple release of pent-up tension. A reversal of this is to tell them something that you know did not happen and watch their reaction. This will at least help you calibrate their response to untruth. It may also goad them into telling you what actually did happen.
Authority and Power
Play on the position of authority and power that you have. Let them know that you can do anything you want. Push them to follow childhood lessons of conforming to parents and those with official authority, such as police and teachers. Show the relevant symbols. If you are in the police or military, wear the uniform. If you are in business, wear an expensive suit. If you are a doctor, wear the white coat and stethoscope. Look smart, whatever the uniform. Talk with authority. Do not use floppy language. Be confident and assertive.
Example
-That was wrong! Do you think you can win? Well you cannot. Do as you are told now and tell me what happened!
People are programmed in early childhood to recognize and accept parental control. This unquestioned compliance is later extended to teachers, priests and others in positions of vested authority. Particularly when other interrogative techniques have caused the person to regress to a child-like state, authoritarian methods are more likely to succeed.
Direct Question
Just ask the question for which you want an answer. Phrase the question such that it is simple and clear. Ask in a pleasant, but neutral voice. Show neither threat nor anxiety. Note how quickly they respond. If there is a slight delay, they may have been considering their response and hence lying. Sometimes a too-short delay can show they had an answer ready (not a good a sign, as it indicates they are prepared for interrogation).
Use this method first, before using any other method, unless you have reason to be more surreptitious in your approach. You can also throw in a direct question at informal points where their guard is down, for example when giving them a cigarette or just as they are leaving.
Example
-How long have you been in this country?
-Do you speak Italian?
The average person, when asked a straight question, will give a straight answer without thinking too hard about whether or not they should give the answer. We are largely brought up to comply with the requests of authority figures, including answering of questions. There is also a social norm that you always answer questions, even from strangers.
Sometimes subjects do not know the importance to you of questions that may seem innocent. Sometimes they will think that answering simple questions will keep you away from the more difficult questions. Sometimes they want to show that they are harmless. Sometimes they are expecting more aggressive methods and a simple question catches them unawares, especially when they are not expecting one.
Extreme Interrogation
There are many extreme methods of interrogation that are still, sadly, in use today, particularly in military environments. In most civilized countries, many of these are banned, though they may still be used to an unknown extent.
A dilemma of extreme interrogation is that, whilst they may produce confessions and information, the truth of these may be a different matter. When subjects reach satisficing, they will say or do anything to reduce their discomfort. Professional interrogators know that subtle methods are usually far more effective.
In law there is also the dual problem of the legality of methods used and the validity of confession under duress. Proof in court of extreme methods can turn the legal tables, destroying police credibility and turning the spotlight on them.
Threat
Threats vary on a long sliding scale from minor to extreme. You can threaten to tell other people or you can put a gun in a person's mouth and threaten to pull the trigger. At the extreme, the goal is to create terror and belief that pain or something highly undesirable is about to happen.
Threats may be of physical pain, harm to significant others or action that the subject desperately seeks not to happen. Blackmail works in this way, where the threat of exposure of secrets can lead people into desperate action. The problem with threats is that if the subject calls your bluff and you do not carry out the threat, then your credibility as an interrogator is lost.
Pain
The application of pain is a basic technique of extreme interrogation, whether through creating general discomfort, physical beating or using instruments of torture. Whilst many people will do anything to escape pain, extreme cases such as terrorists and spies may be trained to withstand high levels of pain. It also has surprised many interrogators how people with high ideals will go through terrible pain rather than give in.
Disorientation
Interrogators can use many methods to disorient their subjects, including:
Language that causes confusion.
Rapid barrages of questions.
Use of hypnosis and hypnotic language.
Deprivation (food, drink, company)
Debilitation
Debilitation is the systematic weakening of the person. Physically this may be through means such as corporal punishment, pain and deprivation.
Good policeman/bad policeman
One interrogator is very unpleasant and may seem to be becoming extremely angry and uncontrolled, perhaps being about to use extreme interrogation methods. The other interrogator is reasonable and holds back the nasty interrogator, preventing the suspect from being harmed. They may fight or argue amongst themselves.
Whilst the nasty interrogator is out of the room, the nice interrogator apologies for the unkind colleague and explains that he might not be possible to hold them back next time. He then talks urgently with the suspect, saying that if the suspect can give him something useful, he may be able to calm the nasty interrogator down.
The dangerous interrogator is direct evidence of potential harm. Active care about a person, deliberately acting to protect them, is a powerful trust-building activity. Having given the suspect something something, the nice interrogator has now set up an exchange dynamic, whereby the subject owes them. This is compounded by the additional offer of exchange of information for further protection.
Silence
Just sit silently. This can be done with a passive or sympathetic air, as if waiting for them to confess. It can also be done with more aggression, staring at the other person. In this case a staring competition may be invoked (which you must win). A way of keeping yourself calm in this is to stare not at their eyes but at the bridge of their nose.
After discussing the implications of the suspect not disclosing something, the interrogator sits quietly, looking at the subject and occasionally raising eyebrows slightly if the subject looks like they might be about to speak.
Many of us are not accustomed to silences in a conversation and we will feel a tension that requires something to be said. This can lead us to speaking just to fill the gap. If we have been given something to consider, this may also increase tension to comment.
Aggressive staring can draw a naturally aggressive person into a staring match. When you win, then you will have won a competition and they may well feel defeated. This gives you the upper hand to ask further questions, to which they may well feel obliged now to answer.
Questions to discuss.
- What are the techniques used in interrogating?
- Which of them do you find the most efficient?
- What does “Already Know” technique include?
- What is extreme interrogation?
- When can the “silence” technique be the most efficient way to interrogate?