Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Tips

Back to Tips

You are only saying this because I am (age, race, sex, etc.)."

This tactic may be a variation of the previous example where the individual expresses, either mock or real anger.? There are a number of reasons why the suspect might use this type of statement.?

First, the suspect might be expressing his perception of reality to the interrogator with this type of statement.? Minorities often feel victimized by society and this statement is nothing more than the suspect articulating the feeling of helplessness he feels at this point in the encounter.? Forget the fact that the suspect is guilty, he still feels like a victim because he has been caught.? Remember that a suspect has rationalized his decision to offend, creating a righteous reason for his act.? Once this reason has been internalized he becomes the victim when caught.

Another possible reason that a suspect might use the age, race or sexual preference card is the current climate of political correctness.? As minorities have entered the mainstream over the last forty years, there have been numerous hurdles to overcome from individual perceptions to cultural norms.? Holding up the unfairness of the past switches the focus away from the evidence in the current case to the problems of the past, supplying a smokescreen under which the guilty hope to escape.

This statement can also be used as an effective delaying tactic allowing the suspect time to think while turning the pressure to the interrogator.? It is now the interrogator who is on the hot seat defending himself against innuendo.? The suspect now observes the interrogator and his response to the statement of prejudice.? If the interrogator shows a sign of weakness, the suspect will press the attack with further unsupported statements alleging the interrogatorês prejudice.? This tactic also gives the suspect an opportunity to assess the interrogatorês confidence in his guilt.

 

Finally, this statement might be used because it has worked successfully in the past during conflicts.? People return to strategies that have worked for them previously.?

In an interview or interrogation, the guilty party puts himself under tremendous emotional and physical pressure internally.? Trying to conceal his deception, censor his words and control his emotions is a complicated job requiring constant attention.? There is little time to think about what should be done, so the individual returns to the most basic of decisions, what has worked for him in the past.? Police officers are trained to react on a basic physical level during violent conflict, rather than making a slower cognitive decision which might cost them their lives. Similarly, an individual who has successfully used anger or prejudice to win encounters in the past will logically return to those patterns of argument in times of conflict.

If the interrogator becomes sidetracked into a discussion of prejudice, the suspect takes control of the interview or interrogation.? It is also impossible for the interviewer to prove that he is not prejudiced, as the suspect has alleged.? The loss of control may derail even a case with significant evidence because the interrogatorês response was inadequate enough to deflect the suspectês assertion.??? There are several possible replies the interrogator may make to this type of statement.


1) I agree that some people might think that this was done because of someone's age, race or sexual preferences. There is no question at all that some people are prejudiced and would love to act unfairly toward those people that they dislike. However, in this instance, because of the way the case is supervised, developed and documented this could not happen. The department demands that the personality and the preferences of the individual are ignored while only the facts, which are age race and gender neutral, are considered. What we are really concerned about is the reasons why this occurred. Sometime the frustrations of being held back because of perceptions….

 

This response to the suspect is handled as an explanatory denial, where the suspect has offered the interrogator a reason or excuse why he could not or would not have been involved. To handle the explanatory denial, the interrogator agrees with the suspect's statement, retakes control of the conversation with this agreement and starts off on a new rationalization based on the suspect's statements. In the above response, the interrogator agrees that unfairness and prejudice exist, as to argue otherwise would be foolish. The interrogator talks about the safeguards of supervision and then begins to develop a new rationalization. One rationalization that would fit in the context of this statement is an individual's frustration of being put down and held back from succeeding which might cause an individual to make bad choices. The interrogator has now taken the suspect's statement and turned it into a face saving devise to protect the suspect's self image while also offering plausible reasons for being involved in the incident.

 

2) You talk about prejudice, but you make statements about me without knowing anything about my personal beliefs or me. This reply might be made if the relationship between the interrogator and suspect has been previously respectful. This response's strength lies in the relationship and rapport developed from the onset of the encounter. To advocate fairness and yet to make unfair statements of another is a difficult position to defend. The interrogator then seizes this to develop a rationalization about guessing why someone did something and that it is human nature to think the worst about people we do not know well. Coming full circle the interrogator ties this unfairness into a discussion of the importance in understanding why things happen the way they did, so there can be a fair assessment of the individual.


3) My wife is (black, Hispanic, white etc.) My (son, daughter, nephew, niece) is gay. So I know personally the difficulties and emotions that they face on a daily basis. The authors suggest that this response be used only when it is true. Nothing can be more powerful than a softly spoken truthful statement of having walked in another's experiences personally. The interrogator then expresses the feelings and emotions from a personal point of view showing understanding and using this as another rationalization to reduce the suspect's resistance to giving a confession.

 

These replies to the suspect are not the only things that might be said, but each response by the interrogator develops the suspect statement into a reason why someone might have made an error in judgment. The interrogator should not take the suspect's attack personally, but rather view it in its appropriate light of someone struggling to escape a difficult situation. This also provides new rationalizations that can be developed as another reason the suspect might have become involved in the incident.




Back to Tips

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