Alfredo Albondigas is obviously a mentally disturbed man. The inmate could be suffering from psychosis or other related psychological disorders. The mental imbalance might have been brought about by drug and substance abuse. With the known prison background and environment, use of drugs such as Marijuana, heroin, crystal methyl, LSD and others is rampant. Alternatively, Mr. Albondingas might be suffering from acute depression leading to the meltdown. Mental disturbance from the environmental effects of prison trauma and stress could induce delirious hallucinations. Other possible mental states that could be influencing the behavior could be Peduncular hallucinosis and primarily schizophrenia. These two are very likely mental illnesses covering the expressed symptoms of hallucinations, exaggerated paranoia, aggression and suicidal tendencies.
Medical Personnel Resource
In that relation, as a senior member of the negotiation team, I would need some specialized persons with me. One of this is a professional psychiatrist with a background in prison psychology. Alternatively, psychologists with a sociological angle on the sociological character of prison and confinement context would suffice. The prison psychiatrist would be most useful in the negotiation scene. The psychologist would be able to offer insight into the state of mind of Alfredo Albondigas. I would also be able to gain insights into the behavioral pattern of such persons as the prisoner and the hostages. Predicting possible actions and behavior of the entities in the hostage situation would be realized, and appropriate actions were taken. Most importantly, the profession of a prison psychiatrist would be most instrumental in advising on how to handle the hostage situation from a psychological perspective (Kohlrieser, 2006).
Possibility of hurting Hostages Analysis
One of the factors to establish before giving the relation of possible eventuality taken by Albondigas is his history. A negotiator would need to have an insight into the medical, social and criminal background of Albondigas. Armed with that information, it will be easier to draw a possible eventuality, if a solution is not found before the deadline given. With the available analysis of a possible primarily schizophrenia, the mental disorder background can be insightful too. Having three hostages with him, the possibility that Albondigas will kill one is very high. The captor has the leverage of commanding three hostages and thus three negotiation opportunity leverages. If he kills one maintenance personnel, he will still have the corrections officer and the second personnel to use as a negotiation token. It can, therefore, be authoritatively said that if two hours elapse without Albondigas seeing a semblance of the flying saucer leaving, he will hurt one or both the personnel. The captor might not necessarily kill the personnel, but he might hurt them by physical assault (Matusitz, & Breen, 2006).
There is a clear discord in communication between the hostages and the captor. Such a scenario means the chances of empathetic connection is far removed increasing possible hostage killing. The fact that he is communicating with the maintenance personnel via the correction officer is very revealing. The mental condition of Albondigas shows that he has actively identified the two personnel as hostile and a threat to his wellbeing. His paranoia and psychosis are causing him to erase the human element from the hostages viewing them as alien accomplices. As such, hurting or killing them to him in his current will seem okay and justified. His actions will be justified in his mind as defensive rather than offensive. The theory that the personnel are giving signals to the imagined aliens appears to be ingrained deeply in the prisoner’s mind. It is also noteworthy that Albondigas is exhibiting the psychosis behavior mannerism in both the physical and mental state. From popular culture, wearing some special gear on one’s head can prevent mind control or mind reading.
According to Matusitz (2013), some films have depicted aluminum like helmets and head gears being worn by characters as counter measures against mind control and mind reading. Such relations can be explained by the wearing of aluminum foil around his head by Albondigas. Such behavior is evidence that the captor has in addition to his primary schizophrenia, suffering from some form of the obsessive compulsive disorder. The OCD with popular culture fiction of aliens and alien-human mind control could cause him to have distorted imaging and perceptions. As a result, he might subject the two maintenance staff as threats to his humanity self. The implication would be killing or wounding them as a defensive action. The fact that he appears to be in less hostile terms with the corrections officer shows his line of thought. It is evidence of his fixation with the maintenance personnel as allays of the aliens. He has stubbornly placed them as allays and aids of the aliens in exposing him to the threats of the aliens in his cell. A close synthesis of these reveals a mindset that is buttressed by an alien invasion OCD, psychosis, and schizophrenia. All this is a cocktail for highly dangerous and murderous subject.
Negotiation Resource Persons
There are several people that would be most critical in the negotiation process. I would like to have these persons at the scene for interviews. They would be most resourceful in providing information that will enable negotiation talks with Mr. Albondingas. One of these persons would be the prison psychiatric or psychologist. The resident psychologist would provide insightful information on how the captor’s state of mind is and how he is thinking. Such would help to avoid tactical minefields of playing on the wrong terms, which might lead to fatal eventualities. It should be remembered that the victim is highly disoriented and interprets information very differently from other generic captors. The other resource person would be the closest friend, acquaintance or cell mate of the prisoner. If it were logistically possible, a close family relation such as wife, sibling or parent could also be brought in for an interview.
Close relations usually have the ability to understand such people far better than others. The relations can help answer questions about the history and background of Alfredo. Questions on whether he has ever experienced or behaved in such a fashion before in his lifetime will be revealing. The negotiation team will also be able to establish childhood fears, personal challenges, personality type and character Constitution of Alfredo. It, however, should be remembered that these persons might give biased information due to emotional attachments. It would, therefore, be very crucial to have the Prison warden in charge to offer an analytical review of information. Interview from the prison records, interactive experience, and visual monitoring will bring about a clear perception of the situation.
Guards and wardens who have been on duty in proximity to the prisoner would also be significant information sources. The guards and other correction officers will be able to help evaluate the likelihood of Alfredo hurting the hostages. Due to their close supervision experience, these persons will be able to have observed certain behavioral patterns of the prisoner. Such behavioral mannerism and conduct is usually a buildup of experiences, conditioning, and nature and nurture elements. The guards who have close surveillance in physical and CCTV monitoring will offer valuable observation reports. Knowing when the behavior for psychotic exhibition started will offer an idea of the extent of his mental disorder. Knowing the severity will, in turn, inform the decisions to go ahead with the Correction Entry Reaction Team (CERT) plan to kill Albondigas.
Negotiation Approach
My approach in speaking with Mr. Albondingas will be contained and negotiate ideology. The New York Police Department developed approach works to minimize casualty and end the hostage situation as quickly as possible (Gaibulloev & Sandler, 2009). When speaking with Albondigas, it would be advisable to focus on isolating the hostage situation in the cell. The incident scene will be contained by ensuring limited contact with other persons in the prison vicinity or outside. The special phone used to communicate with the captor will be used to isolate the captor from other persons. Ensuring only a two-way communication between the captor and the two negotiators will actively contain further escalations. The disorientation the prisoner has, would distort other people’s voices who attempt to communicate with him. Consequently, he might interpret them as the alien signals or confuse them with hostile threats.
As such, developing rapport and familiarity by limiting communication between the prisoner and the two man negotiation team will be very tactical. Taking this step will ensure that the captor does not feel rushed and overwhelmed by the many people negotiating with him. With his state of mind, such feelings of confusion might lead to frustrations and feelings of not losing control. The result would be panicking and killing the hostages and possibly commit suicide too. The second approach tenet to apply would be delaying action and negotiation as long as possible. The containment and negotiate approach principle of delayed negotiation works to buy time for further rescue plans and situation control. The delay would be achieved by engaging Albondigas in open-ended dialogue and questioning.
The questioning should be non-threatening and not interrogation based. Such would ensure that the prisoner does not go on the defensive and feel threatened. The dialogue and questions should be framed with the intention of gaining information, details and understanding the hostage. The prisoner should, as a result, give an opportunity to articulate their wishes, conditions and message. Feedback would then be provided by offering alternatives to the option of 2 hours ultimatum given. As much as we are aware that Alfredo Albondigas is suffering from a mental problem, this should not be used as a negotiation conversation. Most mentally and demented persons believe their illusions are real. They also have a fixation that people are conspiring against them to portray them as demented or hurt them. I would therefore, converse with the apparent oblivion that the man is not mentally sick.
I would, however, hint that he might be tired, hungry, stressed out or in need of some rest, sleep or relaxation. Such would be drawing on an empathetic connection with the prisoner. Having empathy reduces aggression and minimizes confrontation. I would also ensure that all the conversation from the negotiation team is non-confrontation by keeping it non-judgmental. By doing so, I would be ensuring there are an air and spirit of cooperation as opposed to confrontation aggression. In that state of mind, the man might even gain an introspective turnabout and rethink his intention to kill the victims. It would be however ill-advised to place too much positivity or hope in such an approach. An alert and apprehensive state of mind would be vital in helping to anticipate possible dangers and new developments. Consequently, I would plan for the worst case scenario where Albodinga intends to carry with his intention of killing the maintenance staff.
They key principal of the ‘Contain and negotiate’ would be stalling for time and delaying the actions of the subject. By having a drawn out negotiation, several options will be explored and their workability tested and analyzed. Passage of time is also an impactful element in toning down the threat. Slow, delayed and calculated back and forth dialogue will work to impact physical and psychological effects on the captor. With time, he will become physically and mentally exhausted. With such a state, his wits and mental sharpness will be sufficiently reduced and dulled. The effect will be reduced aggression, violent and calculating persona on his part. Patton (2013) established that most assault rescue missions have ended up with the highest casualties. Waiting to psychologically exhaust and slow the aggressor, however, works to limit the fatalities. A relatively similar situation occurred in the Attica prison riot in 1971 (Borowsky, 2011). The other cases have been the Branch Dravidian Siege and Ruby Ridge also resulted in multiple deaths of rescuers, captors, and hostages. The result vindicates the validity of using the ‘contain and negotiate’ approach.
The risk of this approach would be the unpredictability of working with a mentally unstable person. With his mental instability, OCD, fixations and hallucination, the prisoner might take the delay as a conspiracy to attack him (Mark, 2009). His disorientation can also lead to misinterpretation of facts. Such feelings might evoke frustration and consequential violent reactions. The other issue with this problem would also be in the lack of practical training in the negotiation team. As the method is not practically trained to prison officials, cooperation might be unforthcoming. The prison team might become inpatient and unsupportive of the long process of negotiation. Thus, the full range of the hostage crisis might not be handled well (Hasselt, 2006).
Another principle of this approach is active listening. It would be important to listen to the demands closely, and understand underlying motives of the prisoner. From that angle, one would be able to establish the psychological elements of the case. Making Albondigas know that we are listening is vital to have a connection with him. Knowing that he has our ear and acknowledging the possibility of an alien invasion would be prudent. Getting empathy connection ensures one delay of the killing of the victims. With such a rapport, I will then appeal to the prisoner’s sense of humanity. Once trust is gained, we can then appeal to him to release the maintenance crew so as to enable us to accomplish the demand to have the alien saucer to leave. The influence here will be used to solve the problem of stubborn fixation. The influence will be in recommending a course of action. The solution to release the prisoners can be framed as a collaborative effort between us, the team and the prisoner. This will eliminate the notion of us against him (Dolnik & Fitzgerald, 2008).
Drawing him in the influence of action can be done by using the framing ‘we’ to include him in the plans passively. Making him feel that he is part of the solution will ease the work of convincing him to work as per the plan. After that, the negotiation team will gradually initiate behavioral change. The behavioral change can be introduced via piece meal suggestions and requests. Such can include permission to feed him and hostages and request to have a doctor come and check on the captor’s and hostage’s wellbeing. Once the basic behavioral change is induced more advanced changes can be negotiated. At this point, we would ask him to come voluntarily out without harming victims. A fair exchange of releasing the hostages for the facilitation of releasing the alien saucer can also be negotiated. What is important is to ensure gradual negotiation steps in all the steps taken for the hostages’ safety.
References
Borowsky, J. (2011). Responding to Threats: A Case Study of Power and Influence in a Hostage Negotiation Event. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11(1), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332586.2011.523300
Dolnik, A., & Fitzgerald, K. (2008). Negotiating hostage crises with the new terrorists. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International.
Gaibulloev, K., & Sandler, T. (2009). Hostage Taking: Determinants of Terrorist Logistical and Negotiation Success. Journal of Peace Research, 46(6), 739-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022343309339249
Kohlrieser, G. (2006). Hostage at the table. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mark, C. (2009). Hostage Diplomacy: Britain, China, and the Politics of Negotiation, 1967–1969. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20(3), 473-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09592290903293803
Matusitz, J. (2013). Interpersonal Communication Perspectives in Hostage Negotiation. Journal of Applied Security Research, 8(1), 24-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2013.738406
Matusitz, J., & Breen, G. (2006). Negotiation Tactics in Organizations Applied to Hostage Negotiation. Journal of Security Education, 2(1), 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j460v02n01_05
Patton, B. (2013). Roger Fisher as Self-Starting Interventionist: Responding to the Iranian Hostage Conflict. Negotiation Journal, 29(2), 141-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12013
Rogan, R., & Lanceley, F. (2010). Contemporary theory, research, and practice of crisis and hostage negotiation. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Van Hasselt, V. (2006). Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation Training: A Preliminary Evaluation of Program Efficacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(1), 56-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854805282328
