Talk:Reid technique

Pseudoscience?

There's a discussion of the Reid technique in Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), pp. 141ff, which makes it sound as though there is not only no scientific evidence supporting the technique, but a fair amount of evidence against it. The current page cites Kassin & Fong's study that found that it did not improve detection of deception, but the page doesn't seem to properly take note of this finding. Other critiques of Reid cited by Tavris and Aronson include Deborah Davis and William T. O'Donohue (2004), "The Road to Perdition: 'Extreme Influence' Tactics in the Interrogation Room," in W.T. O'Donohue and E. Levenski (eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology, pp. 897-996, NY: Elsevier Academic Press; Saul Kassin (2005) "On the Psychology of Confessions: Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk?" American Psychologist, 60, pp. 215-228; Saul M. Kassin, Christian A. Messner, and Rebecca J. Norwick (2005) "'I'd know a false confession if I saw one': A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators," Law and Human Behavior, 29, pp. 211-227. I think this page needs to bring these criticisms into greater focus--looks to me like the technique is pseudoscience. Lippard (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete listing of 9 steps

I don't know anything more about this subject than I read here and on other webpages (including the links I added). I couldn't resist, however, completing the 9 steps so I was bold and did so. So far no objections so my next step would be to assume that this meets the request to 'improve this page' (can't see any explanation for the request beyond the obvious) and so I should delete that tag. If I don't hear anything in a day or so, I'll delete it. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) -- deleted Tre1234 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper technique

A British study has indicated that around 20 percent of people properly interrogated are vulnerable to confess, whether guilty or not.

What does "properly interrogated" mean here?

1. interrogated in accordance the methods prescribed by the "Reid technique"
2. questioned "properly", i.e., in accordance with ethical standards but also in a way which effectively elicits true information.

I think it means the former. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Needs source

Like many interrogation forms, the Reid technique has been accused of inducing subjects to confess to something that he or she did not do. A British study has indicated that around 20 percent of people interrogated this way will confess, whether guilty or not.

• The Innocence Project in New York found that out of 123 people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, nearly 27 percent had falsely confessed to the crime. [1]

• But it’s a different story in Britain. There, under pressure from the courts, police won’t use those tactics. What’s more, they’ve determined that one in five people brought in for interrogation may be vulnerable to confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. [ibid]

Another good source is "Why Do People Confess to Crimes They Didn't Commit?"—it's a New York Magazine article that explains how John Reid helped change the way criminal investigations were conducted and replaced the third degree with the Reid technique, but also brings up the question of whether the Reid technique is just the third degree in a different (namely, psychological) guise.--173.51.112.10 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lying is verboten in the Reid Technique?

I'm troubled by the claim that "The use of lies..." is not a sanctioned part of the Reid Technique. Inbau and Reid state that the interrogator must "Avoid creating the impression that you are an investigator seeking a confession or conviction." Instead, the interogator is to appear as a neutral but interested party, someone who just wants to sort this mess out before it gets any worse, and ultimately a father confessor. The interrogator may adopt a sympathetic persona such that the alleged actions of the subject are minimised in their deviation from the norm: "You took the money to buy food for your kids, right? Who could blame you for that?". "What man *wouldn't do something about it if his wife's playing around, right Joe?", etc.

All of this is deeply deceptive, so it seems to me that the claim that lying is not sanctioned is mere sophistry.

>> The links I added don't suggest lying is bad under the technique - the reverse, in fact. The recent Canadian press coverage of the Pickton trial talks about the detective pretending that his own mother died of cancer to match the experience of the accused. This matches my other reading but maybe the Reid Technique as given by the institute forbids lying: I doubt it. So, anyway, I added "is reported to" ahead of the forbid lying. I probably should have deleted the line. If anyone who has had the training or read the book knows then perhaps they can update with the official line. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) >> I added a link to a newspaper report Tre1234 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

>> I removed the "not officially sanctioned" phrase. Lying seems intrinsic to the approach and whether it is officially sanctioned or not seems pretty moot, never mind the absence of evidence. If someone wants to add a section covering the POV of John E Reid & Associates, I'm sure that would be useful.Tre1234 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples?

could some examples be added to make the theory more clear?

>> the HowStuffWorks link is excellently clear. I included a reference to it but didn't cut-and-paste any of her examples, naturally. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacks clarity

I have several problems understanding this article:

• intro states there are three separate and distinct components, yet The Behavior Analysis Interview describes two of them - are they mixed in some way or is the second paragraph misplaced?
• The Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation - what are the nine steps? >> Added Tre1234 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• What does progresses mean in "interrogator progresses the suspect"? leads? encourages?
• As asked above, examples would help a lot in the nine steps section >> Refer to HowStuffWorks link Tre1234 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

-213.219.141.119 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My Interrogation

I was put through the Reid Technique and let me tell you, it is one baffling experience. The police officer did not question me about the facts. I was not asked to explain my view of events. Instead the cop assumed I was guilty and immediately turned psychologist, trying hard to think of a morally good reason for me to have committed the crime, and he wanted me in on this strange thinking process to help! All I could think of is: Why aren't you asking me about the facts instead of all this touchy-feely nonsense. I could see right through the bullshit. A great interrogator is like Columbo, where you become trapped in your own statement of the facts. I guess real life cops don't have the IQ of TV cops and so the Reid Technique is necessary. It is very easy to beat the Reid Technique or any other method of interrogation and anyone can do it: Don't speak to the police! I give that advice to you and all my friends.

Page is overall fairly subjective.

Particularly the following, which desperately needs a citation:

"Many courts have held that the psychological pressure exerted during a Reid interrogation is profound. Effectively the interrogator, in an unrelenting manner, with the conclusion of guilt resolutely formed in his mind, will grind the suspect down, convince him or her that irrespective of their factual innocence, they are guilty."

76.117.108.168 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That statement did need citation, but it is not subjective. If you read through what the Reid technique consists of, then it's obvious that it only works (and is only applied) when you assume the suspect is guilty. That is why it is different from other interrogation techniques which are intended to extract factual details from the interrogation subject and catch lying subjects when they contradict themselves.

The very purpose of the Reid technique is to "break down the suspect's defenses and rebuild him as a confessor". It's assume that an innocent person wouldn't confess, so there's nothing wrong with assuming guilt and applying the technique to all suspects (who, by definition, the police suspect of being guilty).--173.51.112.10 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)