Recently, Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates announced it will stop training United States police departments on the Reid technique, a method of police interrogation, due to the risk of false confessions the technique presents. For those of us who have worked in the criminal justice system on behalf of defendants for more than about 5 minutes, this is welcome news. For those who are unfamiliar with how false confessions occur, some background is in order.
Why Would Anyone Confess to a Crime They Didn’t Commit?
Fair question. And one prosecutors have been posing to juries in closing arguments since the dawn of time. The answer, if you’ve been following this blog for any length of time, should not surprise you. . . it’s based in data and research and, well, science. Studies have shown certain interrogation tactics increase the likelihood of a false confession.
Alternate Interrogation Techniques
Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates will now focus on other interrogation techniques, stating, “Confrontation is not an effective way of getting truthful information.” The Agency also credited a host of academic research which establishes other interrogation styles “are far less risky.” Instead, Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates will now address the Reid Technique only to “educate police on the risk and reality of false confessions.”
The Response from John E. Reid & Associates
Joseph P. Buckley, president of John E. Reid & Associates, which licenses the Reid Technique, offered the following in response:
- The technique has consistently held up in court; and
- That it is not “confrontational” except when evidence already suggests the suspect’s guilt.
Here’s a full version of their response .
A Word of Caution
The response from John E. Reid & Associates contains at least some misstatements or overstatements to support their position. For example, the response includes an assertion Steve Drizin and Laura Nirider gave a presentation for the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, favorable towards the technique. Reid’s statement includes the sentence, “In their presentation they stated that Reid is the gold standard on proper procedures, and that they regularly review reid.com and our materials to establish best practices and to point out what other investigators did that was improper.”
One Response to the Response
The record should be very clear. This is, at best, a misunderstanding of the presentation. To correct the record, Steve Drizin and Laura Nirider have issued a statement of their own, found here. The short version of their response is twofold: 1. We do not endorse the Reid Technique, nor do we consider it a model for proper procedures or best practice; and 2. For more information on a juvenile interrogation protocol that we do consider to be a model for best practices, please visit the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s website.
The fact a technique or method has “consistently held up in court” is not proof a method works; is safe and fit for purpose; does not have an error rate; or the method was applied effectively in the case at hand. Our criminal justice system is rife with examples of methods “consistently held up in court” which have no basis in science. See, for example, hair analysis, comparative bullet lead analysis, and bitemarks. This is not a valid argument for the efficacy, suitability, or validity of a method.
The assertion the method is not confrontational “except when evidence already suggests that the suspect’s guilt” is dangerously deceptive. On its face, this seems to suggest a certain amount of caution, since they are “only” confrontational with people who are probably guilty. First, as a general rule, people don’t become suspects unless there is some evidence which suggests their guilt. Thus, by their own standards, confrontational methods are appropriate for everyone. Second, we know people who are guilty sometimes confess, and people who are not guilty sometimes confess. The use of confrontational techniques will yield both true confessions and false confessions.
By understanding false confessions are always a risk in an interrogation, and by seeking to teach methods less likely, according to scientific studies, to induce a false confession, Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates has taken steps which should keep all of us safer – safer from false confessions, wrongful convictions, and, by virtue of same, guilty people remaining on the streets, free to cause more damage to society.