Deception in Interrogation
All successful interrogations involve deception. The United Supreme has placed a few limits on deceptions, but the variety of deceptive techniques is limited to the interrogator’s ingenuity. The deceptive techniques used by the police officers are unethical, yet necessary and useful methods of enforcing the law. The reasonable deceptive doctrine says the police are allowed to make deceptive interrogations as long as the innocent person is not affected. For example, in a crime scene, the officers can say they have suspect fingerprints while they have none. Deceptive interrogation is done to obtain some confessions and convictions. The confessions can be obtained about future suspects or to release people who might have been wrongly charged. The deceptions are also morally accepted if they are not coercive, do not erode the public trust, and cannot lead to false confessions.
The use of informants is widespread, and law phenomenon in intelligent communities. They are people who provide information about certain criminal activities under investigation. They provide information available for use in investigations. However, they can destroy the credibility of the investigation. They can provide information that is not relevant to the investigation. They can also render the investigation useless and endanger the lives of the investigators since they have crucial information.
Police officers may omit, deduct, or lie on the police reports. Police officers can lie about their positions, evidence, or false records obtained. These are accepted lies that are used for prosecution. For instance, an officer may tell a suspect that he will be covered if he mentions other suspects involved in a criminal case. This an accepted lie used for prosecution.