How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes

ABSTRACT

This study examined interview techniques for eliciting admissions from perpetrators of a crime. Two techniques derived from the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework (SUE-Confrontation and SUE-Confrontation/Explain) were compared to an Early Disclosure of Evidence technique. Participants (N = 75) performed a mock criminal task divided into three phases before being interviewed. In the SUE conditions, statement-evidence inconsistencies were obtained by strategic interviewing for Phases 1 and 2. For both SUE conditions, the interviewer confronted the suspects with these inconsistencies, emphasising that withholding information undermined their credibility. For the SUE-Confrontation/Explain condition, the suspects were asked to explain each inconsistency. To restore their credibility, the suspects in the SUE conditions were expected to become more forthcoming in Phase 3 (the phase which lacked information). The suspects in the SUE-Confrontation condition (vs. the suspects in the Early Disclosure condition) disclosed more admissions about Phase 3. As predicted, the suspects in the SUE conditions perceived the interviewer to have had comparatively more information about Phase 3. The suspects in the SUE-Confrontation/Explain condition strived to maintain their credibility either by fitting their story to the evidence or by sticking to the initial story. The study shows that the SUE technique is effective for eliciting admissions.

KEYWORDS:

• Admissions
• inconsistency
• strategic use of evidence
• counter-interrogation strategies
• denial

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Assigning the same value to each admission might be viewed as a limitation considering that the admissions may weigh differently in real-life (i.e. some may be more incriminating than the others). However, studying the weight of the admissions is beyond the scope of the present study.

2. Suspects who provided explanations varied in their behaviour with respect to the percentages of inconsistencies they explained. More specifically, as many as 11 out of 16 offered an explanation to 58% of their inconsistencies in Phase 1 and then to 100% in Phase 2. Five out of 16 explained 60% of their inconsistencies in Phase 1; however, only 20% in Phase 2. Both groups obtained a similar admissions score (M = 4.18, SD = 1.66, and M = 4.80, SD = 2.17, respectively).

3. The total number of suspects does not add up to 25 as two suspects were consistent with all six pieces of evidence.

4. The numbers do not add up to the total number of suspects who reported to have changed their strategies. This is because some of the suspects’ responses fell into the ‘other’ category and were excluded.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Commission Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) [grant number 2013-0036] and Specific Grant Agreement (SGA) [grant number 2013-0678].