Since the First is still recovering from its New Year’s hangover, CAAFlog points to MAJ Peter Kageleiry, Jr., Psychological Interrogation Methods: Pseudoscience in the Interrogation Room Obscures Justice in the Courtroom, 193 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (2007).
Personally, I think that anyone that prattles on about how Miranda hurts the police and such, should be forced to post a bond which would be forfeit as soon as one of their relatives "confesses" to a crime they didn't commit while being interrogated.
In our post here we covered the Department of Justice's position that it does not want jurors seeing the techniques they use to get people to confess, which, they say are proper, but the jurors might not understand why the DOJ's version of morality is superior to their own.
Anyway, his points are thus:
- The [Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces] should adopt a more enlightened view of police interrogation methods. A more informed justice system would recognize the underlying necessity for expert assistance when law enforcement obtains a confession through the use of psychological interrogation methods....
- Recent studies of the false confession problem demonstrate that false confession theory is reliable and that expert assistance is often necessary to analyze and explain psychological interrogation methods. The article also “describes the pseudoscientific psychological interrogation methods routinely employed by police interrogators.” (This is a great section, because it shows all the tricks that the police (and really anyone) can use to get the lower classes to confess to anything.)
The article is also of use because it collects caselaw that has ”expressed doubt about an interrogator’s ability to accurately interpret body language.”
Comments