In this assignment, you will explore how interrogation is different from interviewing.
You work as a psychology professional for a metropolitan police department. Your primary job is to screen police officers for employment and emotional stability. You make recommendations about their suitability for employment, conduct interviews with police officers to determine whether they should be referred for counseling, and monitor their performance by dialogues with their superiors. You are recognized for your skills as a clinician, and you are asked to participate with a team of interrogators so they may become more proficient in obtaining confessions from suspects.
Compare the relationship of a psychology professional working with a suspect as a client with the relationship of a psychology professional working as a consultant to an interrogator.
In a minimum of 300 words, respond to the following:
Part 1: Differentiate between interviewing and interrogation. What are the goals of interviewing and interrogation? In what instances would a psychology professional be involved in an interrogation?
Part 2: Identify a context and setting for a forensic psychology professional to be involved in an interrogation. What would be your concerns in taking on the role of or assisting that forensic psychology professional?
Part 3: Review the current version of the APA ethics code and the APA resolution on interrogations and identify an ethical principle that potentially conflicts with psychology professionals participating in interrogation. Discuss your choice in relation to the context and setting you identified in Part 2.
Use the current version of the APA ethics code; choose elements of the ethical principles to explore issues, such as “do not harm,” “informed consent,” “use of assessment techniques by unqualified persons,” and “resolving ethics code conflicts in an organization.” Explore the following issues in the context of the scenario above:
Who is a psychology professional’s client?
With whom does a psychology professional have a professional relationship?
Do psychology professionals have any professional (as opposed to “moral”) obligations to suspects?
Differentiate between interviewing and interrogation
Over the years, people have been mistaking interview for interrogation, and as a result, they have been using these two words interchangeably. However, there is a slight difference between interrogation and interview that most individuals do not know. Interrogation focuses on getting an answer to predetermined questions and thus can be described as a form inquiry. On the other side, an interview is a formal meeting where the interviewer asks the questions, and the interviewee answers them based on what he or she believes in. Besides, interrogation is mainly designed to get suspects to confess to their crimes.
Depending on the situation an interview and an interrogation may have different goals and objectives. The primary objective of an interview is to get more information regarding an event or a subject, and the interviewee is not coerced to give the information required. The interviewee is supposed to narrate what he or she saw or what they know (Association., 2013). On the other hand, interrogation does not take place in a free environment, and in most, it takes place in a secure and closed room. In most cases, the interrogator tries to get the truth from the person they interrogate by confession, and at times, they have to coerce or force the information from an individual.
- Psychology professional participates in interrogation in unusual circumstances, especially when the psychological well-being of the workers is called into question.
- Professional psychologist’s help is necessary when workers show signs and symptoms of psychological breakdown.
- A psychologist may also be useful in evaluating the mental strength of the workforce to determine those suitable to fill a particular position in the police force.
Forensic psychology seeks to integrate psychology and the law of the country. As a result, forensic psychologists may work in prisons, jails, and rehabilitation centers, government agencies and police departments. Besides, they try to examine the psychology from other professionals as well as study criminals and their crimes to determine traits of a certain criminal. In most cases, forensic psychologists interrogate a suspect to determine whether they are fit enough to stand a trial in the court of law. Other times to conduct an assessment of the jury to determine their suitability in for the case at hand as well as interrogate criminals and advise police department or the law officers involved in the likely responses and behavior pattern from the suspects (Liu, 2015). The major issue and challenge in this industry is the struggle to maintain integrity in all assessments. Often, forensic psychologists strive for accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in science and law. Psychologists strive not to take up a job that can lead them to provide misleading and inaccurate information and testimony.
The American Psychological Association (APA) prohibits its members from participating in any activities or business that can result in torture directly or indirectly. Moreover, psychologists, particularly forensic psychologists are not allowed to participate in any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. As a result, participation in torture or punishing a suspect physically or psychologically to get information shadows the integrity and credibility of this industry and professional (Jackson, 2015). When the integrity of this profession is undermined, people and courts tend to lose trust and faith in testimonies and information presented to them by forensic psychologists. Thus, to protect their credibility, forensic psychologists should be careful when participating in interrogation activities.
Association., A. P. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. . The American Psychologist, 68(1),, 7.
Jackson, R. &. (2015). Learning forensic assessment: Research and practice. . Routledge.
Liu, M. C. (2015). Forensic Psychology.