The dynamics of interview and interrogation are different. The two processes are dissimilar in such a way based on the actions of the interrogators. The terms interview and interrogation; process and suspect informs the readers that I shall be the responsibility of the interrogator to gather facts and to attempt to acquire an admission from one of the suspects (Cendrowski, Petro, Martin, & Wadecki, 2007, p. 190). The term interview refers to the non-accusatory gathering of facts or behavior-provoking conversation that will be able to determine the facts, sequence of events, or some alibis that will confirm the information with a victim, witness or suspect (Cendrowski, et al., 2007, p. 190). It is at this stage that the investigator shall be allowed the open-ended questions to be able to obtain a narrative response from the suspect. Hence, there cannot be a confession since the subject will only deny or confirm the information.
While the term interrogation shall refer to the instance when the suspect appears be guilty and confirms the administrative findings of the investigator (Cendrowski, et al., 2007, p. 190). The investigation should be able to establish the finding during the investigation and to determine the culpability of the mental state of the suspect.
There are preparations that have to be made prior to the encounter and to understand the information extracted from the subject and how to collaborate it with the investigation. The initial step is to determine the policies and procedures that will have to be followed before the interrogation or interview shall be conducted. Sufficient and proper notice should be made to the subject in both instances.
The purpose of the interview of the suspect or accused is to gather information that will link him to the crime of murder, homicide or kidnapping. In all these crimes, the initial findings of the investigator must be able to show that the subject is the primary suspect. It is anticipated that there is a probability the emotions will run high. Hence, one of the anticipations is that police can be faced with the challenge of controlling personal anger to avoid antagonizing and harassing the interviewees (Yeschke, 2006). However, before any answers are elicited from the accused, it is important that he is given the Miranda warnings as part of the procedural safeguards of the suspect/accused in order to dispel the compulsion that is present during custodial interrogations. According to Goldstein and Sevin Goldstein (2010, the primary importance of providing the accused with his Miranda warnings is to enable the prosecution to use the statements of the accused given to the law enforcement officers during custodial investigation.
It is also necessary for the police to visit the scene of the crime to be able to propound the proper questions during the interview based on their observation of the crime scene, which is also applicable when preparing the questions for interrogation. The difference between the two lies in the manner the questions are formulated. Questions during the interview are asked to gather information on the facts surrounding the crime scene. On the other hand, in preparation for interrogation, the police officers ask questions which are designed to seek the truth. Both methods require the police to properly analyze any alibi that may be set-up by the suspect. This can be made possible by planning ahead of time. According to Janniro (1991), in both instances, it is necessary that all information about the victim have been gathered to obtain complete and overall knowledge of the criminal cases such as kidnapping or homicide.
References
Cendrowski, H., Petro, L. W., Martin, J.P. & Wadecki, A.W.(2007). The Handbook of Fraud
Deterrence. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Goldstein, A.M and Sevin Goldstein, N. E. (2010). Evaluating Capacity to Waive
Miranda Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Janniro, M. J. (1991). Interview and Interrogation. Web. April 26, 2013.
< http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-interrogation.pdf>.
Yeschke, C. L. (2002). The Art of Investigative Interviewing, 2nd ed. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier.
