Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Articles

Back to Articles

The Process of Interrogation

David E. Zulawski and Douglas E. Wicklander

Confronting the target of the investigation is one of the final steps the investigator takes in concluding the inquiry. Often the ultimate outcome of the case may hinge on whether the subject confesses. The confession of a subject is responsible for more successful case resolutions than all the other forensic techniques combined.

An investigation relies on the collection of evidence; both direct and circumstantial, along with the interview and interrogation of individuals involved in the case. These individuals may be victims, witnesses, or suspects in the incident under investigation. Interviews with these individuals answer the investigative questions: who, what, where, when, how and why. The interrogation of an individual is done when he is the target of an investigation or is withholding information crucial to the successful conclusion of the investigation.

Confronting the reluctant witness or suspect has a process that can be applied to increase the likelihood of engaging the individual's cooperation. Unlike the "third degree" tactics deplored by the United States Supreme Court, today's methods do not rely on the use or threat of physical force.

Types of Interrogation

The confrontation of a suspect is a complicated process made more difficult by a multitude of factors. The type of individual, age, education, job, experience with the criminal justice system, or their awareness of the investigation are just a few of the variables the interrogator must deal with when preparing to confront a suspect. Selection of an appropriate strategy, time, and location for the confrontation requires the investigator to pre-plan for the case close.

There are a number of styles of interrogation that are used to facilitate a confession. While this article will focus on one method, the following are other avenues to be considered:

  1. Suspect decision-making. (Hilgendorf and Irving, 1981) This model of the interrogation relies on the premise that the suspect becomes involved in a complicated decision making process. The suspect's decision to confess revolves around several paths or courses of action from which the subject must choose. The subject must also weigh the probabilities of likely consequences attached to each of these possible courses of action. The final decision being, the evaluation of the gains or liabilities associated with each possible course of action.

    In this model of interrogation, the suspect must consider his or her options and the likely consequences. Their decision in this model is driven largely by the perceived consequences they believe to be attached to a course of action. In essence, the individual must balance the perceived consequences against the perceived value of a chosen path. Other factors, such as the individual's self image, may play a strong role in the subject's decision to confess. The strong society prohibition against lawbreakers will play a role with all individuals except the sociopath personality.

    In this model of the interrogation, the interrogator manipulates the concept of social approval and self-image to influence the decision making of the suspect. The interrogator can also influence them by focusing on the liabilities of certain choices they may have to make. Third, the interrogator can increase the stress related to social and psychological costs they may face by not confessing.

  2. Cognitive-behavioral Model of Confession (Gudjonsson, 1989b) In this model of interrogation, the confession results from the unique relationship between the subject, environment, and others involved in the process; other suspects, victims, witnesses and interrogators.

    Gudjonsson argues that this model of interrogation elicits a confession as a result of cause and effect. What occurred prior to the interrogation may encourage a suspect to confess. He describes a number of factors that may be relevant to the decision to confess, such as, social isolation, fatigue, stress, or feelings of guilt.

    As in the previous model, consequences play a role in the subject's decision to confess. There are two types of consequences that the subject must consider: immediate and long term. There are also four basic areas in the cognitive behavioral model that the subject and interrogator use in determining whether to confess:

    • Social-- The individual subject's fear of isolation from friends and co-workers may or may not increase an individual's resistance to a confession. A benefit is provided by the interrogator, which is positive reinforcement and praise for taking the interrogator's preferred path.
    • Emotional-- the experience of being confronted and/or arrested is certain to increase an individual's anxiety level. The fear of the unknown, combined with guilt and shame of the violation, creates a great emotional relief when the suspect elects to confess. When the subject is presented with a clear idea of what the future may hold, he may experience a great emotional relief and abandon the shame and fear of the unknown that accompanies an illegal act.
    • Cognitive-- This area is the subject's thoughts and perceptions. Here the suspect interprets facts and makes assumptions about what is or is not known. They may convince themselves that their guilt is known absolutely, even when this may not be the case.
    • Situational-- This area relates to the timing of the confrontation and the circumstances surrounding it, such as: Where is the interrogation conducted? Is the subject allowed to wait? Does the interrogation begin immediately? Who conducts the interview and when is it done?
  3. Psychoanalytic Model of Confession (Reik 1959) Probably the least valuable model to consider is the psychoanalytic model. It postulates that the feelings of guilt are the foundation of the decision to confess. Guilt after the event triggers the individual's need to punish himself and results in a confession.

    This model certainly does not account for the confession of the career criminal who has little, if any, guilt for their actions. However, the subject with strong ties to family and community, with little or no previous experience with the criminal system, may react in certain situations with a need to be punished for their actions. In general, this model is only marginally accurate in addressing a small percentage of those who have a need to confess.

  4. Emotional Model of Confession (Jayne 1986) This model postulates that the subject's failure to tell the truth is the result of their attempt to avoid the consequences of their actions. The consequences might be real, such as the loss of freedom, or perceived, as in the loss of self-image. The suspects, in this model, shifts blame for their actions to some source other than themselves.

    In this model, the interrogator uses the natural inclination of the subject to shift blame. Face-saving statements allow the subject to justify their actions without alleviating them of the legal responsibility for their criminal acts. The suspect internalizes the suggestions and shows his acceptance of them through behavioral changes. The interrogator in this instance is not viewed as being an opponent, but rather a mediator between the suspect and the company or criminal justice system.

    The process of rationalization is driven by the acceptance of the suspect. The interrogator judges the acceptance of a rationalization by the frequency and intensity of the suspect's denials and changes in the physical behavior of the suspect. The suspect's behavior is used to determine his resistance to giving an admission. When the time is right, the interrogator offers an alternative question based on the rationalization to obtain the admission. The alternative contrasts the acceptable versus the non-acceptable choice and the suspect is encouraged to select the face-saving choice, thus making his first admission of guilt.

    In general, this model encourages the individual to make an emotional decision to confess, rather than a rational one. As a result, the suspect may begin to react emotionally: crying and sniffling, as he relates his criminal act to the interrogator.

  5. Interaction Process Model of Confession (Moston, Stephenson, and Williamson, 1992, Zulawski and Wicklander, 1993) This model uses the characteristics of the suspect to determine the approach and style used by the interrogator. The approach considers the suspect's background, preferences, likely responses to the confrontation, the case facts, and case development in making the decision on what methods may be useful in facilitating a confession.

The Wicklander-Zulawski approach is strongly dependent on the evaluation of the subject and his likely reaction to the confrontation. The interrogator then selects the approach that is likely to be successful with the subject. Hopefully, the approach chosen encourages the subject to make a rational decision to confess, rather than an emotional one.

Decision to Confess

The suspect who elects to confess makes the decision to do so either emotionally or rationally. Emotional decisions to confess are related to the subject's guilt feelings and self-image. This type of individual needs the support of rationalization and projection to protect the framework of his or her emotional state. The Emotional Model of Interrogation (Jayne, 1986) works well with this type of suspect because it supports the individual and their self-image while allowing them to justify their actions. It is not unusual for a suspect making an emotional decision to confess to have pronounced signs of submission. These signs of submission could progress from a head and shoulder slump, to tearing, to crying.

Unfortunately, when suspects are in an emotional state, they may react in ways that benefit neither the interrogator nor themselves. Eric Byrne, an American psychologist, founded a branch of psychology called Transactional Analysis, which attempts to explain inter-personal relationships. In transactional relationships, the individuals adopt one of three roles, depending on their perception of the other party. The three roles, parent, adult, and child, interact in the dominance and dialogue as the two parties converse.

In the Emotional Model, the interrogator takes the role of the parent and the suspect takes the role of the child. If Mom confronts her child about a misdeed, it sounds remarkably like an emotional interrogation of a suspect. The child makes a denial to mother's direct accusation, quiets into submission, becomes withdrawn, and then finally cries and admits the misdeed.

Conflicts arise when one party, the interrogator, tries to force a role upon the other party that he or she does not wish to play. The child reacts to a mother with the statement, "Well, go ahead and send me to my room for the rest of my life and don't feed me!" The suspect responds, "Well go ahead and lock me up. I don't care!" Neither of these statements is the true desire of the speaker, but is instead an attempt to change roles in the conversation. The child no longer wishes to be spoken to as a child, and this statement is an attempt to alter the power of the other individual.

When the suspect makes a rational decision to confess, the interrogator and the suspect are in a complementary conversation. The Wicklander-Zulawski Technique (Zulawski and Wicklander 1993) creates a complementary conversation that encourages a subject to make a rational decision to confess. In this approach, the interrogator takes the role of the adult speaking to the adult. When this approach is successful, there are a number of benefits for the interrogator and the suspect in the encounter, which will be discussed later.

The decision to confess means that the suspect has addressed the fears or concerns he had and has resolved them in his mind. This is true regardless of whether the suspect has made a rational or emotional decision to confess. The fears or hurdles that the interrogator must address to overcome the suspect's resistance to a confession fall generally into one of the following five categories:

  1. Fear of termination or financial repercussions. The suspect is reluctant to make an admission because it may impact his ability to get or retain a job. The suspect may also focus on the bills that are due or other financial obligations in his life.
  2. Fear of arrest or prosecution. This area is often of greater concern to those suspects who have had little previous contact with the police. Many times, their inexperience will create a greater fear of the consequences of arrest than the circumstances warrant.
  3. Fear of embarrassment. This hurdle to a confession relates to a suspect's self-image. The fear that they will shock family, friends or co-workers and lose their respect. Still others are unable to face what they have done in their own mind without destroying their own self-image.
  4. Fear of restitution. Some suspects are resistant to a confession because they could not compensate the victim for the damage or loss their actions caused.
  5. Fear of retaliation. This hurdle can often be insurmountable. Fear for one's safety or that of a family member can often be a difficult hurdle to overcome. This factor is becoming more prevalent as gang intimidation and violence increases. Child molesters are often reluctant to make an admission because of the fear of being labeled as such in the prison system.

When the interrogator considers the reasons why a subject elects to confess, it is at best an educated guess. Interrogators, through experience, recognize that some suspects confess to relieve guilt, others because of overwhelming proof of their guilt, and others because of the interrogator's persuasion. In our research with convicted felons, they all have said essentially the same thing, that if the interrogator treats them as if they have value they would at least consider confessing. This seems to be true regardless of the consequences that they faced. To a person the convicted felons said that their resistance to a confession would increase if they were being berated or looked down upon. (Wicklander and Zulawski, 1994, unpublished research).

Suspect Denials

Certainly, the fears of the suspect play a role in the decision to confess, but the way a suspect is approached by the interrogator is undoubtedly a greater factor. Every individual has a learned predisposition to deny, which is an avoidance behavior learned as a child. This learned behavior attempts to avoid the consequences of an illegal, dishonest or shameful act. The interrogator must anticipate what actions or behaviors the suspect will engage in to counter the accusation of wrongdoing.

The role of the interrogator in the confrontation should be to avoid forcing the suspect into a position where he or she must deny. Traditionally, interrogators have been trained to do the same things each time they confront a guilty suspect, a tactic that often influences the suspect to deny, rather than make an admission of guilt.

When considering the reasons a suspect might deny, we find that they will break down into three basic areas; environment, suspect and interrogator. The suspect's decision to deny is often directly influenced by the choices the interrogator makes and the strategies chosen to engage the suspect in the confrontation.

  1. Environment-- The timing of the interview, location, room setting, witness selection and other factors all may play a role in the suspect's decision to confess. The resources and flexibility of the interrogator may dictate many of these factors.
  2. Suspect-- The suspect will often deny because of past experience with the criminal justice system. During a confrontation the suspect is making decisions about what the interrogator knows and the evidence that may have been uncovered during the investigation. The suspect reacts to the interrogator and his strategies, either reducing resistance to a confession or increasing it. Other suspects simply use the denial to buy time to evaluate the investigation and interrogator.
  3. Interrogator-- The interrogator makes the largest contribution to the suspect's decision to deny. The interrogator's confidence in the suspect's guilt, word usage and plan of attack help to define the probable response of the suspect.

The interrogator must look at the behavior of the suspect in all aspects of his daily life to be able to answer the question, "How is the suspect likely to react when told that his involvement in an illegal act has been uncovered?" The answer to this question can often be found in how the individual reacts to conflict. Since people are creatures of habit, we tend to respond to similar problems with a preset response. The child who is disciplined by a parent may react with anger or a sullen silence. Once the parent learns the child's preferred response, he can create an approach that leads to a more satisfactory behavior by the child.

The individual's choice of a strategy will be based on what the suspect has found to be successful in the past. The identification of the suspect's likely response can often be discovered by asking the question, "If the suspect has ever been disciplined or confronted, how did he react?"

Once the interrogator identifies the probable suspect response to a confrontation, he makes a decision on what approaches may or may not be effective. The interrogator should devise an approach that does not encourage the suspect to use that previous strategy. For example, if the individual is generally aggressive in confrontations, the interrogator should devise an approach that will not allow the suspect to become aggressive. This might mean that the witness selection or the location of the interview would be used to control the suspect's decision making process.

The traditional thinking in interrogation has always been to use a non-supportive environment for the suspect interview. This may or may not be effective because of the needs of the subject. The positioning of the participants in a room might change because of the need of the interrogator to create a certain mindset in the suspect.

Regardless of the other factors, the interrogator should make a conscious decision about forcing the suspect to make a denial. Once the suspect has made a denial, he or she is now forced to defend the lie with additional denials. This places the suspect in a position of having to continually lie to defend himself. It is often easier for an individual to make an admission if he has not been forced into a position where he had to lie.

As we are all aware, there are certain situations where the suspect's lie can work in the interrogator's favor. In fact, a lie may be as good as a confession in some instances. Encouraging a suspect to tell lies can increase the value of the evidence that was developed during the investigation. Direct contradiction of the suspect's statements with irrefutable evidence can also be a powerful wedge in bringing out the truth, but it does not always result in a confession from the guilty. In some instances, the presentation of overwhelming evidence by an interrogator may have the reverse effect of increasing the suspect's resistance to a confession. The obvious benefit to the investigation, when a suspect chooses not to confess, is he has to live with the lie he chose to tell which the evidence now contradicts.

Four Parts of Interrogation

No matter how the interrogator chooses to interrogate a suspect, there will be four distinct parts to the confrontation.

  1. Reducing Resistance-- The interrogator chooses some method to reduce the suspect's resistance to a confession. Depending on the style chosen, this could be done with a systematic presentation of evidence, use of an emotional appeal, or interrogator persistence. In the case of interrogation by torture, physical pain or depravation of the basic needs of the suspect reduces his resistance to a confession.
  2. Obtaining the Admission-- The second part of every interrogation is the first admission of the suspect. This is the first acknowledgment by the suspect that he is involved in the act under investigation. This is not a confession, but merely the first admission that confirms the interrogator's assertion that the suspect was involved.
  3. Development of the Admission-- This section of the interrogation expands the suspect's admission into a legally acceptable confession that answers the questions; who, what, where, when, how, and why. This also allows the interrogator to explore other areas of criminal activity in which the suspect may be involved.
  4. Professional Close-- The interrogator reduces the suspect's oral admission to a permanent form, either written or taped, and has it witnessed.

Wicklander-Zulawski Technique

To this point we have considered the types of possible interrogations, causes of denials, fears of the suspect, and the common parts to an interrogation. Now we will focus on the construction of an interrogation to encourage the suspect to make a rational decision to confess, in many cases without making a denial.

  • Preparation and Profiling--The interrogator considers the case development and goal of the interrogation. The elements of the crime or violation are defined and the evidence indicating the violation is clearly understood. The interrogator should understand the strengths and weaknesses of the inquiry and begin to consider whether direct evidence should be used early or late in the confrontation, or if it should be revealed at all. It is at this point that the interrogator may consider what type of enticement questions, or bluffs might prove useful and when they should be used.

    The next consideration is special personnel or legal requirements that may be necessary to close the investigation. Is the interrogator acting as an agent of the police or working independently for an organization? Is there a union? There may be legal issues that need to be addressed based on the answer to these and other questions and the geographical location of the interview. Different countries and even states within the United States have unique legal aspects the interrogator should consider before beginning the confrontation. The ultimate goal to prosecute, or simply terminate, may dictate some of the case closure methods. There are obviously many other factors that should be considered during the preparation phase in addition to those mentioned here.

    The interrogator now begins to look closely at the suspect involved in the incident. Is the suspect aware of the investigation, or has the inquiry been concealed from him? This certainly may effect the individual's resistance to a confession and the methods chosen to confront the suspect.

    For example, a woman was killed at her home sometime during the day. The suspect vehicle left tire tracks in the drive that showed the tires were mismatched. The investigators determined that there was a delivery made to the home during the day. During the interview with the delivery driver, investigators asked him if he returned to the victim's home a second time on the day of the killing. In response to the question, the driver turned red, averted his eyes and delayed his response to the investigator's question. The physical response of the suspect was so pronounced that the investigators asked only a few more questions and concluded the interview. The investigators then checked the suspect's vehicle and determined that its tires matched those left by the killer's car. The investigation focused on the delivery driver who was convicted of the murder, but never confessed to the crime. In most cases, there will be a time that the interrogator will have an advantage in obtaining the admission. In the case just cited, the time to begin the interrogation of the suspect was when he first realized the possibility that his involvement may have been discovered. The officers certainly did not err in waiting to gather additional evidence before they confronted the suspect, but the tradeoff was letting the driver know that he was the focus of the investigation.

    In most investigations, there will be a time that the suspect will be more susceptible to a confession. Unfortunately for the investigator, that time may arrive before the investigation is complete. The investigator has to make a decision whether the value of possible additional evidence will outweigh the suspect's current susceptibility to a confession. If the investigators had confronted the driver based on his verbal and physical responses even though the investigation was not complete; they would not have lost the subsequent evidence, and may have gained a confession because of the suspect's momentary confusion.

    The question could be asked how could we confront someone without proof? We can not if we plan to use a factual attack, building the case for the suspect's guilt with the evidence that was accumulated during the investigation. There are several problems with a factual interrogation. First, the presentation of evidence may show the weaknesses in the investigation. Second, presenting evidence to a suspect when he is still physically and emotionally strong will often result in the suspect contradicting the evidence meaning or relevance. Third, in the small number of cases where there might exist the possibility of a false confession, the subject's knowledge of the evidence could contribute to a convincing statement from the suspect who just repeats the facts that he was told. The WZ Technique solves these problems and allows the interrogator to confront a suspect even when the investigation is not as complete as it could have been. This gives the interrogator an opportunity to take advantage of the "optimum moment in time" when the individual is susceptible to a confession.

  • Reducing Resistance-- The interrogator, in the first part of the interrogation has several clear goals. Establish rapport with the suspect, convince him his guilt is known, and allow him to save face, and avoid forcing the suspect into a position where he has to deny.

    After the interrogator has established rapport with the suspect, he begins to develop the credibility of the investigation. This is done in generalities when the interrogator talks about the work that he does. This discussion also includes the types of cases that are investigated. This allows the interrogator to introduce the topic of the investigation without making a specific accusation the suspect might deny. The second benefit that the interrogator derives from this is possible suspect behavioral reactions to other acts of dishonesty or involvement.

    Building the credibility of the investigation continues with a general discussion of investigative techniques, which if they had been used, could have developed information linking the suspect to the crime. The discussion of investigative techniques causes the suspect to consider, perhaps for the first time, that there may be evidence linking him to the crime.

    The guilty suspect has been rocked by the realization that his guilt is known, but he generally does not deny because there has been no direct accusation made by the interrogator. The suspect also may withhold his denial because he hopes that perhaps he is wrong in his assessment of the situation.

    The second component of reducing resistance is showing understanding for the problems that people face. The interrogator begins a discussion of reasons why people might become involved in criminal acts. The interrogator offers these reasons in a manner that is general rather than specific to the suspect. The interrogator uses "he", "she", "they", or "them", rather than "you" as he presents the rationalizations. This lack of personalization continues the suspect's pattern of no denial as he listens to the reasons why people make "errors in judgement".

    The process of rationalization is one that is perfectly suited for the criminal suspect. Above all else, the criminal is a rationalizer. This allows him to justify his actions and project his own feelings onto others. The company makes a lot of money. She was asking for it. He doesn't pay us enough. These are the same rationalizations that the interrogator offers the suspect to minimize the consequences, focus the suspect's attention on the resolution of the problem, and to transfer blame to his circumstances in life.

    The rationalizations are selected based on the background of the suspect. For example, if a suspect is having financial problems, the interrogator might talk about the costs of raising a family and the stress of bills. The interrogator knows that the reasons he offers the suspect may not be the real reasons why the individual became involved in the criminal act, but these are simply reasons that allow the suspect to save face. The other benefit to the interrogator is rationalizations allow the suspect to save face, but it does not usually effect the elements of the crime. Does it make a difference that a suspect says he stole the money to take care of his children or to buy drugs? The answer is "no". What the money was used for is irrelevant to the case, but the admission that he stole the money is not. Showing understanding allows the interrogator to continue rapport building and the interrogator becomes a mediator, rather than an opponent in the encounter. Rationalizations help the suspect overcome the fears of confessing that were discussed earlier; loss of employment, financial issues, arrest, self-image, restitution, and retaliation.

    While an interrogator might suggest that there are benefits to confessing, the suspect does not necessarily see these advantages. The interrogator has to deal with either tangible or intangible benefits to the suspect. Tangible benefits might be the placing of only certain charges, allowing bond, charging the suspect at a later date or any of a number of others. More likely, the interrogator has to deal with intangible benefits. These are the suspect's perceived advantages of a confession; self-image, relieving guilt, or others understanding his plight.

    One way to shorten the suspect's recognition of the benefit of confession is through the use of a role reversal with the suspect. The interrogator sets up a story where the suspect has to make a decision about two people, one who is uncooperative and one who is not. The suspect recognizes that he would feel differently about the two people if he were in the decision-making role. This story empowers the suspect with the knowledge that he is not helpless, but can have an influence on the decision-makers, based on his actions.

    Behaviorally, the suspect will move through several distinct phases as the interrogator continues his monologue. The first behavioral phase will be rejection as the suspect recognizes that his involvement in the criminal act has been discovered. This will usually result in closed body posture, crossed arms and or legs that provides a defensive barrier increasing the comfort level of the suspect. The second phase of behavior, evaluation, generally commences shortly after the interrogator begins the process of showing understanding and rationalization. The suspect's body will begin to appear more open, the muscles will begin to loose tension and the hand will often move to the face in a consideration pose. The final behavioral change is submission. The suspect's body begins to open, the arms and legs uncross and the suspect begins to withdraw mentally to consider his options. A salesman would recognize these behaviors as the "buy signs" of the customer. The interrogator comes to the same conclusion.

  • Obtaining the Admission-- The next phase of the interrogation is obtaining the first admission from the suspect. The admission may be made verbally or with a head movement, either a nod or a shake. The interrogator observes the signs of submission and offers an assumptive question to the suspect that encourages an admission of guilt. The Assumptive Question is generally an extension of the rationalization the interrogator was offering to the suspect. If the interrogator was talking about the proceeds of the crime being used to pay family bills, the assumptive question might be, "Did you use the money for bills or was it for drugs?" The interrogator offers the suspect a choice, acceptable vs. unacceptable, which makes it easier for the suspect to save face by selecting the more acceptable of the two choices.

    Another type of assumptive question is the Soft Accusation. This question does not provide the suspect a choice, but instead asks about some aspect of the suspect's involvement in the crime. An example of this type of question might be "When was the first time that you took money from the company no matter how long ago?" This type of question is followed immediately with a follow up question such as, " It wasn't your first day on the job was it?" This exaggeration by the interrogator often brings a denial from the suspect. However, it is a denial that is an admission of guilt.

    The interrogator supports this denial as an admission saying, "Great, I didn't think that it was your first day on the job! When was the first time?" The suspect's admission brings us to the third phase of the interrogation, Development of the Admission.

  • Development of the Admission-- This phase of the interrogation answers the questions who, what, where, when, how and why. The suspect's involvement in the criminal act is explored fully by the interrogator who looks for confirmation of the investigative findings. Another key purpose of this section of the interrogation is to expand the admission into other areas of dishonesty or criminal activity of which the interrogator may not even be aware. A recent study of rapists found that they were involved, on average, in 20 additional criminal acts that they had neither been arrested for nor questioned about. The development of the admission and the expansion of the individual's involvement can have a number of obvious benefits to the investigation or the organization.

    During this phase of the interrogation, the interrogator may be faced with an absolute denial from the suspect, "That is all I did and I don't care what you or your investigation say." This is the time to present evidence that clearly contradicts the suspect's statement. Even weaker circumstantial evidence is often enough to break this denial and gain additional admissions. Saving evidence for this phase of the interrogation often has a greater impact on the suspect than using it early in the interrogation to obtain the first admission.

  • Professional Close--The final phase of the interrogation is preserving the statement for future use and witnessing it. This can be done in many different way and formats, but each captures the same information from the admission. The final statement contains the subject's admission and covers the elements of the crime or policy violation to which the suspect has admitted. The language clearly details what was done; by whom and in what context it was done. The suspect's statement may be handwritten, audio/video taped, or taken by a court reporter. Regardless of the format, the information included accurately portrays the suspect's admission and its voluntary nature.

    Discussion

    In general suspects make the decision to confess based on their own perception of the situation and their own personal needs. With apologies to Freud, few do so as a result of overpowering guilt or desire to punish themselves. Rather, the decision to confess is probably a combination of the suspect's need to release the internal pressure of guilt by talking about the incident and rationalizing his involvement. It could also be the suspect's belief that his guilt is known, or the interrogator's persuasive arguments. Or some combination of these reasons.

    Gudjonsson and Petursson (Gudjonsson and Petursson, 1991a) attempted to quantify the reasons for a confession resulting from these internal, external or proof factors. External factors, the fear of being arrested, threats or other issues contributed to a confession less than 20% of the time. Internal factors proved to be a much stronger reason to confess. Suspects, 42%, indicated that they experienced relief after talking and explaining their side of the story. Fully a third indicated that they wanted to " get it off their chest". Proof by far was the strongest factor to encourage a confession. Fifty-five (55%) percent of the suspects in the study said that they confessed because they believed that the police could prove their involvement.

    The Wicklander-Zulawski Technique takes advantage of these findings by first creating a strong belief that the suspect's guilt is known. Second, the WZ Technique offers rationalizations that allow the suspect to save face, while building a persuasive argument in favor of a confession. Finally, it creates a winning situation for the suspect by not forcing him to lie to the interrogator in the early stage of the interrogation when he is physically and emotionally strongest.

    The WZ Technique also allows the interrogator to change tactics and strategies based on the type of suspect personality or their reaction to the confrontation. The interrogator who understands the suspect and his motives can create an environment and strategy that encourages a confession.



Back to Articles

® 2007 Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. - 800-222-7789 - info@w-z.com