Risks in interviewing terrorist suspects

Risks in the use of robust interview tactics range from the

political through to the
psychological. The political risks rest upon two distinct
factors. It is arguably the case that
robust and aggressive approaches are inconsistent with
the liberal democratic traditions
and standards of ethical conduct the West claims to be
defending. Indeed, some have
argued that the use of aggression makes the interviewers
no better than the terrorists
(Sands, 2008). In addition to this, such activities may
reinforce terrorists’ criticisms of the
state and justify their use of violence against it, perhaps
serving to legitimize and encourage
others to become involved in terrorism (Rejali, 2007).
An individual suspect’s perceptions of the police are
relevant as these are strongly affected
by their experiences of interacting with police officers. An
individual’s negative experiences
during an interview can have profound consequences not
only upon their cooperation with
the police but potentially upon a community’s engagement
with police in their fight against
terrorism and upon their perceptions of the quality of
policing. Relevant here is the body of
knowledge referring to the procedural justice expectations
individual’s hold about
interactions with authorities such as the police (Tyler,
1989).
Tyler (1989) identified four classes of procedural justice
expectations individuals hold
concerning how they expect to be treated by authorities.
These are a need to perceive that,
they have a:
1. Voice in the interaction, that is they can express a
viewpoint and feel their information is
valued; there is.
2. Neutrality in the interaction, that is an absence of bias in
their treatment by the authority;
they experience.
3. Respectful treatment in the interaction being treated in a
manner that protects their rights;
and that they feel.
4. Trustworthiness of the authority being treated in a
sincere way where there is concern for
their needs and their needs are addressed.
The extent these expectations are met has a powerful
influence upon the perceived
legitimacy, trust and confidence in the authority, and
ultimately the likelihood that the
individual will cooperate with the requirements of the
authority (Tyler, 1989; Tyler and Blader,
2003). In addition, Skogan (2006) has shown that negative
encounters with the police have a
much greater impact upon an individual’s confidence in
the police than do positive
encounters, where negative encounters appear to
significantly reduce confidence whereas
positive encounters appear to have a more limited impact,
but certainly do not reduce
confidence.
What police officers do or do not do during an interview is,
therefore, a crucial determinant of
a suspect’s perception and potential for cooperation. An
individual should be subjected to a
robust or aggressive interview style their procedural justice
expectations are likely to be
compromised – the approach challenges expectations of
trust, fairness and voice – with an
attendant negative impact upon perceptions of police
legitimacy and future cooperation with
the police, including cooperation during the suspect
interview. Some might argue that this is
a small price to pay should that person be convicted of
terrorist charges and further attacks
are prevented. However, not all persons who are
interviewed for terrorist offences are
charged and they are likely to be released back into their
communities. Following release
these individuals are highly likely to report their
experiences to community members who
themselves will carry procedural justice expectations akin
to those of the suspect.
Any reports of negative experiences will challenge these
expectations with the risk that the
community itself begins to lose a belief in police
legitimacy. This could have profound
consequences; the police rely upon intelligence and
information from all communities in their
attempts to prevent terrorism, robust and aggressive
police interview tactics could,
therefore, negatively impact upon police attempts to
engage with communities.
PAGE 128
j
THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2011
It is also noteworthy that a key performance indicator of
policing today is public confidence
in the police (United Kingdom Home Office, 2009). It is
known that public confidence is
strongly related to the extent procedural justice
expectations are met (Tyler, 1989). So robust
approaches to terrorist suspects may have an impact way
beyond the immediate effects
upon the suspect impacting potentially upon judgments of
overall police performance.
Finally, individuals who would make political capital, either
to support terrorist activities
and/or to damage the reputation of the police, may seize
upon any reported negative
experiences.
At a psychological level, there are risks to the reliability of
the information obtained using
robust or aggressive approaches to interview
(Gudjonsson, 2003). An aggressive interview
style from the interviewer can give rise to heightened
anxiety within the suspect. Increased
anxiety raises the risk of confabulation where a suspect’s
account of events may be based
upon information provided by interviewers, through
suggestibility where suspects begin to
incorporate into their accounts suggestions made by the
interviewer. This situation can be
exacerbated, following:
B
a suspect’s arrest experience;
B
a suspects mental state – he or she may be experiencing
fear, anxiety or shame;
B
as a result of an extended period of detention where
dependency might appear; and
B
a result of miscommunication due to language and cultural
misunderstanding and/or
challenges to beliefs.
Together, this can result in at best unreliable information
and at worst a false confession
(Gudjonsson, 2003).
This has risks for the integrity of a police investigation
providing as it does a chance of a
miscarriage of justice should the case proceed to court
with the attendant damage to the
reputation of the police and criminal justice system as a
whole.
Whilst it may be possible to find justification for aggressive
tactics, the risks to the integrity of
the police investigation coupled with the risks to the
perceived legitimacy of the police mean
that this is perhaps a price not worth paying. How then
might the police carry out these
difficult suspect interviews in ways that reduce these
risks?