Introduction
The justice system is a very complex institution, which calls for a proper manner of getting information. In the system where judgments are made depending on the types of evidence given, it is essential that the counsels of both sides take proper measures and steps to ensure that they get the relevant information from the witnesses that will sway the verdicts to their way. Strong evidence through such interrogations is likely to see a party getting an upper hand in the verdict, while shambolic evidence will most likely see a case ruled against one’s expectations. Interrogations, to a large extent, should aim at getting out the relevant information from a witness or a suspect that will positively build one’s case. It is therefore important that the criminal interrogations are carried out in an efficient manner that aims at building a party’s evidence
The purpose of interrogations is to obtain certain information from an individual that is related to the case, in which the individual is not ready to give the actual account of events. There is some difficulty in trying to get out some information from an individual who is determined to hide it for their benefit to obscure justice from taking place. In most cases, an interrogation can only be termed as being successful when it leads the guilty party or a criminal making a confession or even admitting that they took part in the illegal activity in question. As such, this means that if the suspect fails to open up to admit participating in the crime in question, then the interrogation, in a way, was unsuccessful, since it did not meet its purpose. In most cases, however, interrogations fail to meet their core purpose since most guilty suspects often succeed to leave the courts without making any guilty confessions. This makes interrogations lose their value as they do not get the critical information required in making efficient case resolutions (Lassiter, 2004). Most counsels have, in most cases, left the interrogations without tempting the suspects to reveal the real account of events that took place in a certain scenario. This may result in criminals being acquitted and going unpunished, even for the crimes that they took part. This is a big loss to the community since the criminals are, in a way, freed to strike again.
There are several reasons as to why interrogations may fail. Important to note that experience is very useful when making the interrogations, since the counsels have some clue on what to ask and how to ask it in order to trap the witnesses who aim to give inconsistent information. Inexperienced counsels may have some difficulties in interrogating seasoned suspects because they may lack efficient expertise to get out the correct information from them. Some of the reasons as to why interrogations may be unsuccessful may be foreseeable, while others cannot be predicted. Through identifying and avoiding some of the reasons why interrogations fail, attorneys will hugely increase their chances of incriminating the suspects and increasing their success rates (Lassiter, 2004). Through minimizing such failures, the attorneys will lay their emphasis on the aspects that will ensure that the suspects find it difficult to give false evidence through having major contradictions and inconsistencies when giving their evidence. Successful interrogations can only be boosted by the counsels acting on the factors that promote failure, as this will increase the probability of having successful interrogations. To achieve this, one has adequately prepare for the interrogations, take into account the differences between the interrogations and an interview, have some skills on how to develop persuasive arguments and themes, how to establish an efficient set plan, how to develop the interrogation subject, how to time the interrogating among many more others. The attorneys should also be aware that despite putting in much effort, some interrogations are bound to fail. This therefore means that a failure in an interrogation does not essentially; mean that a counsel is incompetent. They should not be, therefore, affected by the unsuccessful interrogations. Rather, they should look forward to their next task, determined to make amends in where they failed.
As already argued above, it is important to adequately prepare for the interrogation. Most successful interrogations are only achieved where the attorneys take their time to make adequate preparations on the case and having a clue on what the issue in contention is. Unplanned approaches in the interrogations, in most cases, lead to interrogation failures. Going to the interrogation room without adequate preparation will most likely lead to failure because one will not be aware of the issues they need to address. This will give the suspects a relatively easy time in their attempts to avoid being termed as guilty. An attorney is expected to have a proper knowledge of the facts of the case, acquainting themselves with the environmental and setting of the interrogating room, have a sufficient insight into the background of the subject and have a proper method of documenting the confessions. This will give them an upper hand in their attempts to get relevant information from the suspects, hence boosting their chances of having a successful interrogation.
In practice, the setting and the environmental considerations are very essential in determining whether a counsel will have successful interrogations or not. It is important that the interrogator takes control of the discussion topics and the physical environment. It is in fact harmful for the subjects to dictate the manner the interrogation will be conducted, since this will only add more confusion to the counsel. It is important for the counsels to only conduct interrogations when they are guaranteed control of the environment and privacy. Many questions have been raise as to what a good favorable setting is. It is important to note that a good setting is in most cases small in size, well controlled with mechanisms to avoid unnecessary distractions. Environments that are stuffy and not properly arranged should be avoided by the counsels. This is because they are most likely to promote unnecessary distractions to the counsels, giving the suspects a chance to prepare how to give some false information. A setting that is characterized as being free form distractions may force the subjects to respond to the queries put unto them. As a result, the interrogators will have a much better chance to analyze the non-verbal and verbal arguments to the issues raised (O'Hara et al. 2003). Non-verbal communications are very important I that they give the counsels an opportunity to access the validity of an argument raised by the subjects. Through analyzing the behavior of the subject as they respond to a certain question, the counsels get an opportunity to determine the extent to which the answers given could be true. On the other hand, when the setting is not controlled, there are high chances that the interrogation will fail. Interrogators ought to be guaranteed that such a controlled environment will be available for them in their attempts to extract the truth from the subjects.
Knowledge on the case facts is also another important aspect of the interrogation system. It is important that before starting any interrogation, the counsel has a proper understanding of the case facts. This is despite the fact that some facts may end up proving to me more important than others prove. One of the most persuasive tools in any criminal interrogation is having some knowledge on how a certain crime occurred. Through explaining to the subjects how a certain crime was committed, the criminal interrogator will have a better chance of tempting the subject to reveal the real events that took place and the reasons as to why they were involved in the crimes. However, caution must be taken when employing this tool. The interrogators must ensure they have the relevant information. Trying to reveal something that they do not have adequate facts on may prove to be costly as the subjects may end up using the information to render the interrogators incredible. Losing credibility in interrogations leads to interrogation failures, and the subjects may end up being freed, despite the fact that they committed the crimes in question. Having proper facts before the interrogation is therefore a crucial tool in ensuring that the interrogations are successful.
One other important tool in achieving successful interrogations is through having adequate information about the subject and their background. In order to manipulate the subjects and lead them to providing the correct information, it is important for a counsel to have some background information on their attitudes, feelings and their personal values. Emotions play a crucial role in confessions. As such, it is important to know how to toy with the emotions of the subjects. After making the confessions, subjects will then try to use logic to defend themselves. Knowing the subject’s emotional weaknesses is crucial to the attorneys as they get the perfect chance to know the areas that they must address in an attempt to expose the subjects ad open them up. By understanding the goals and needs of the subjects, the interrogators get an easy time in trying to extract the truth from the subjects, hence strengthening their chances to be successful.
The interrogators should, at all times, seek to develop persuasive themes and arguments. Whenever necessary themes and arguments to persuade the subjects to reveal the truth lack, interrogations stand a high chance to fail. The persuasive themes are, to a large extent, promoted by the experience that one has in the criminal interrogating field. Counsels who have been in the field for a long time have a rich supply of arguments that they can make to effectively collect the correct information from the subjects. In practice, when an individual conducts more investigations and interrogations, they get additional ideas on how to make arguments. They also get a variety of themes in the manner that they ought to carry out the interrogations if they ought to be successful (O'Hara et al. 2003). Adequate preparation also plays a crucial role in boosting the counsel’s arguments and themes even before the interrogating process begins. In an attempt to have successful interrogations, certain arguments and themes are very crucial when incorporated to the interrogation process. Aspects such as trying to blame the victim, attempting to minimize the crime on the face of the subject, reducing the act’s shamefulness and hoping falsely hoping for a better outcome for the subject may play a crucial role in enticing them to open up. Through employing such techniques, the subjects may see the need to open up and make confessions on their acts, only to incriminate themselves. In essence, experience plays a very crucial role in an attempt to seeking justice and getting the correct information from the subjects. Better preparation is also crucial in getting to understand the persuasive arguments and themes that one ought to make in order to entice the subjects to open up and give confessions that may lead to justice being served.
In conclusion, criminal interrogations play a very crucial role in the day-to-day activities of seeking justice. The interrogations have the ability to bring the real facts of the case onto the table to ensure that judgments are made based on the correct information. By conducting successful investigations, counsels enable the judges to give rulings that are fair. It is the role of the interrogators, therefore, to ensure that they have the necessary expertise in their attempt to have adequate interrogations.
References
Lassiter, G. D 2004, Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment, New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
O'Hara, C. E., & O'Hara, G. L 2003, Fundamentals of criminal investigation, Springfield, Ill, C.C Thomas.
