Talk:Reid technique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reid technique article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Reid technique is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Complete listing of 9 steps 2 Proper technique 3 Needs source 4 Lying is verboten in the Reid Technique? 5 Examples? 6 Lacks clarity 7 My Interrogation 8 Page is overall fairly subjective.

[edit] Complete listing of 9 steps

I don't know anything more about this subject than I read here and on other webpages (including the links I added). I couldn't resist, however, completing the 9 steps so I was bold and did so. So far no objections so my next step would be to assume that this meets the request to 'improve this page' (can't see any explanation for the request beyond the obvious) and so I should delete that tag. If I don't hear anything in a day or so, I'll delete it. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) -- deleted Tre1234 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper technique

A British study has indicated that around 20 percent of people properly interrogated are vulnerable to confess, whether guilty or not.

What does "properly interrogated" mean here?

1. interrogated in accordance the methods prescribed by the "Reid technique"
2. questioned "properly", i.e., in accordance with ethical standards but also in a way which effectively elicits true information.

I think it means the former. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs source

Like many interrogation forms, the Reid technique has been accused of inducing subjects to confess to something that he or she did not do. A British study has indicated that around 20 percent of people interrogated this way will confess, whether guilty or not.

• The Innocence Project in New York found that out of 123 people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, nearly 27 percent had falsely confessed to the crime. [1]

• But it’s a different story in Britain. There, under pressure from the courts, police won’t use those tactics. What’s more, they’ve determined that one in five people brought in for interrogation may be vulnerable to confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. [ibid]

[edit] Lying is verboten in the Reid Technique?

I'm troubled by the claim that "The use of lies..." is not a sanctioned part of the Reid Technique. Inbau and Reid state that the interrogator must "Avoid creating the impression that you are an investigator seeking a confession or conviction." Instead, the interogator is to appear as a neutral but interested party, someone who just wants to sort this mess out before it gets any worse, and ultimately a father confessor. The interrogator may adopt a sympathetic persona such that the alleged actions of the subject are minimised in their deviation from the norm: "You took the money to buy food for your kids, right? Who could blame you for that?". "What man *wouldn't do something about it if his wife's playing around, right Joe?", etc.

All of this is deeply deceptive, so it seems to me that the claim that lying is not sanctioned is mere sophistry.

>> The links I added don't suggest lying is bad under the technique - the reverse, in fact. The recent Canadian press coverage of the Pickton trial talks about the detective pretending that his own mother died of cancer to match the experience of the accused. This matches my other reading but maybe the Reid Technique as given by the institute forbids lying: I doubt it. So, anyway, I added "is reported to" ahead of the forbid lying. I probably should have deleted the line. If anyone who has had the training or read the book knows then perhaps they can update with the official line. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) >> I added a link to a newspaper report Tre1234 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

>> I removed the "not officially sanctioned" phrase. Lying seems intrinsic to the approach and whether it is officially sanctioned or not seems pretty moot, never mind the absence of evidence. If someone wants to add a section covering the POV of John E Reid & Associates, I'm sure that would be useful.Tre1234 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples?

could some examples be added to make the theory more clear?

>> the HowStuffWorks link is excellently clear. I included a reference to it but didn't cut-and-paste any of her examples, naturally. Tre1234 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacks clarity

I have several problems understanding this article:

• intro states there are three separate and distinct components, yet The Behavior Analysis Interview describes two of them - are they mixed in some way or is the second paragraph misplaced?
• The Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation - what are the nine steps? >> Added Tre1234 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• What does progresses mean in "interrogator progresses the suspect"? leads? encourages?
• As asked above, examples would help a lot in the nine steps section >> Refer to HowStuffWorks link Tre1234 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

-213.219.141.119 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Interrogation

I was put through the Reid Technique and let me tell you, it is one baffling experience. The police officer did not question me about the facts. I was not asked to explain my view of events. Instead the cop assumed I was guilty and immediately turned psychologist, trying hard to think of a morally good reason for me to have committed the crime, and he wanted me in on this strange thinking process to help! All I could think of is: Why aren't you asking me about the facts instead of all this touchy-feely nonsense. I could see right through the bullshit. A great interrogator is like Columbo, where you become trapped in your own statement of the facts. I guess real life cops don't have the IQ of TV cops and so the Reid Technique is necessary. It is very easy to beat the Reid Technique or any other method of interrogation and anyone can do it: Don't speak to the police! I give that advice to you and all my friends.

[edit] Page is overall fairly subjective.

Particularly the following, which desperately needs a citation:

"Many courts have held that the psychological pressure exerted during a Reid interrogation is profound. Effectively the interrogator, in an unrelenting manner, with the conclusion of guilt resolutely formed in his mind, will grind the suspect down, convince him or her that irrespective of their factual innocence, they are guilty."

76.117.108.168 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)