Talk:Reid technique
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reid technique article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]Pseudoscience?
[edit]There's a discussion of the Reid technique in Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), pp. 141ff, which makes it sound as though there is not only no scientific evidence supporting the technique, but a fair amount of evidence against it. The current page cites Kassin & Fong's study that found that it did not improve detection of deception, but the page doesn't seem to properly take note of this finding. Other critiques of Reid cited by Tavris and Aronson include Deborah Davis and William T. O'Donohue (2004), "The Road to Perdition: 'Extreme Influence' Tactics in the Interrogation Room," in W.T. O'Donohue and E. Levenski (eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology, pp. 897-996, NY: Elsevier Academic Press; Saul Kassin (2005) "On the Psychology of Confessions: Does Innocence Put Innocents at Risk?" American Psychologist, 60, pp. 215-228; Saul M. Kassin, Christian A. Messner, and Rebecca J. Norwick (2005) "'I'd know a false confession if I saw one': A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators," Law and Human Behavior, 29, pp. 211-227. I think this page needs to bring these criticisms into greater focus--looks to me like the technique is pseudoscience. Lippard (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Really, nothing new here. Cops have been saying ‘we know you done it’ forever. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no such thing as a "lie detector," what exists are people who believe that a polygraph machine is a "lie detector," that gives the people who advocate the supposition that there is a means of leveraging confessions out of people who believe there is such a thing.
- Polygraph "results" are not permitted in criminal cases to be used as evidence, and any prosecutor who attempts to introduce such "evidence" will find their attempt thwarted by defense attorneys who understand that aspect of what is permissible and what is not.
- SCICOP and the Bay Area Skeptics debunked polygraph use decades ago and yet there are still a large percentage of people around the world who believe that it works. SoftwareThing (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Complete listing of 9 steps
[edit]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)
Proper technique
[edit]- 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?
- interrogated in accordance the methods prescribed by the "Reid technique"
- 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)
Needs source
[edit]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]
- Another good source is "Why Do People Confess to Crimes They Didn't Commit?"—it's a New York Magazine article that explains how John Reid helped change the way criminal investigations were conducted and replaced the third degree with the Reid technique, but also brings up the question of whether the Reid technique is just the third degree in a different (namely, psychological) guise.--173.51.112.10 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Lying is verboten in the Reid Technique?
[edit]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)
Lying is frequently used and in fact is an integral part of the technique. Suspects are told at the outset of some evidence that is in the process of being gathered or analyzed. For example, video, DNA, ballistics, gun residue, fingerprints or some other scientific evidence that gives the impression on infallibility. Often times no such evidence exists or was not available in the particular circumstances. The claim of not using leniency is also false. It is at this exact point that sometimes the suspect will be offered "a deal", depending on the suspect's demeanor and the investigator's assessment, plead guilty to crime X now, or we will charge X+1 later. To be clear, police lie to suspects all the time and it is considered a permitted investigative techniques by the courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.30.141 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Examples?
[edit]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)
Lacks clarity
[edit]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)
Page is overall fairly subjective.
[edit]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)
That statement did need citation, but it is not subjective. If you read through what the Reid technique consists of, then it's obvious that it only works (and is only applied) when you assume the suspect is guilty. That is why it is different from other interrogation techniques which are intended to extract factual details from the interrogation subject and catch lying subjects when they contradict themselves.
The very purpose of the Reid technique is to "break down the suspect's defenses and rebuild him as a confessor". It's assume that an innocent person wouldn't confess, so there's nothing wrong with assuming guilt and applying the technique to all suspects (who, by definition, the police suspect of being guilty).--173.51.112.10 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The tone continues to be argumentative, particularly the last section beginning with, "To the contrary..." Similarly, the introduction contained the use of "Indeed" to begin a sentence (which I removed). Such phrasing slants the content associated with it which is expected and necessary in a polemic. The reference to U.S. v. Graham (Criminal Action File No. 3:13–cr–11–TCB, 2014; Westlaw - 2014 WL 2922388 (N.D.Ga.); http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140630B75/U.S.%20v.%20GRAHAM) is both poorly cited and written (parsed from the ruling):
In US v. Graham (June 2014) the US District Court, N.D. Georgia pointer out that "there are a number of cases in which statements elicited from a defendant in response to police deception were found involuntary… but "these cases all involve significant aggravating circumstances not present here, such as, subjecting the accused to an exhaustingly long interrogation, the application of physical force or the threat to do so, or the making of a promise that induces a confession.”
The criticism section already contains the points in the last section. Indeed, the last section seems to be an argument for the PEACE model. Perhaps a better construction would be to remove the last section to a separate article dedicated to explaining what the PEACE model is with a reference to PEACE being a competing model made in the criticism section.BiosocialPolymath (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)BiosocialPolymath
new article on the problems and pseudoscience.
[edit]there was an article in the new yorker about the problems with the Reid technique. i don't have a subscription so i can't read most of it, but thankfully the author, douglas starr, was on Fresh Air about it. the interview is over half an hour long, and really interesting (and depressing). there's also a summary of the interview.
link to Fresh Air radio interview.
one of the most shocking points brought up is that one of the early cases that Reid made his name on (1955, Darrell Parker in Lincoln, Nebraska) turned out to be a false confession that didn't get cleared up until 2012. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just read that article this afternoon and intend to add some of its alient points during the next few days to this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
In "Popular Culture"
[edit]Is it possible to add a Popular culture section with a reference to a scene in True Detective (episode 5). In the scene where Cohle interrogates Francis, I believe he is using the Reid technique.
- Only if you find a reputable verifiable source for it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 27 December 2016
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Consensus is against the proposed move in favor of a rename back to lowercase (in other words, move to Reid technique). (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Reid Technique → The Reid Technique – This article has been stable at Reid technique for years, and was recently moved without discussion to Reid Technique by User:Iazyges. This was brought up over at the helpdesk, by User:Guy Macon on the basis of WP:NCCAPS. A discussion took place, and during it, I discovered that the trademarked and commonly used term is "The Reid Technique". However, there is inconsistency, from what I can tell, over the casing of that term. Per WP:THE we only include "The" in the article title if it is always cased when used. The same can be said of the term "Technique". As per WP:TRADEMARK, we don't regard the owner of the trademark who prefers "The Reid Technique" over all other forms, but with such lack of consistency in third party sources, we might actually want to use the owner's preference as the title. While I could have moved this I'm looking for greater input and consensus on this. (@BronHiggs: who was part of the HELPDESK discussion) Tiggerjay (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rename it back to Reid technique per WP:NCCAPS. Ignore the preference of the copyright holder and all who follow that preference for the same reason we don't use REALTOR® no matter how many third-party sources knuckle under to the legal threats that the National Association of REALTORS® sends out when you call them "Realtors". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rename it back to Reid technique as suggested above by User:Guy Macon to revert the undiscussed initial move by User:Iazyges. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rename as per Guy Macon's cogent argument and common sense naming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I moved it per a request at technical move requests I found no fault in. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Back to lowercase Reid technique since sources typically treat it that way, not as a trademark. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Trademark name
[edit]Discussion on how the trademark should be represented
|
---|
Collapsed since it was a contentious discussion, but finally resolved with consensus to change to "The Reid technique" is a registered trademark of John E. Reid and Associates, and is widely used by law-enforcement agencies in North America." |
Discussion
I corrected a factual error on this page that says that the trademark name is "Reid Technique" however it is correctly registered as "The Reid Technquie". This was reverted by user:Guy Macon under the guise that there is a currently ongoing Article Title discussion ongoing. However article titling has nothing to do with correcting factual errors in the article while have a bearing on the article title. Specifically, the article incorrectly ascribes the trademark sans the article "the". However a search of the US Patent Office will show the corret registration. This is not subjective or open for interpretation, nor is their any WP guideline which is justification to alter a proper quoting of the trademark as a fact. However Guy Macon appears to think there is policy or precedent in this matter. I attempted to address this with him on his talk page, but he wanted it discussed on the article talk page, so here we are... @Guy Macon: since you didn't want to discuss this on your talk page, would you mind sharing your insights here? TiggerJay (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
|
literature tip: Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia
[edit]Lisanne Adam, Celine van Golde: Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia:
Abstract
Since the 1960s, the United States developed ‘Reid interrogation technique’, and its variations have been widely usedaround the world. Due to its interrogative and confession-driven nature – and thus the increased risk of false confessions– many countries (including Australia) have since moved away from this model towards the UK-developed PEACE-approach. This article will utilise case studies and forensic psychological research to explain how coercive techniquesused during police interviews increase the risk of false confessions. It will then describe the implementation of inves-tigative interviewing in Australia by presenting an analysis of those state and territory police manuals which are publiclyavailable.
kind regards, Sujalajus (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect date for development of Reid Technique?
[edit]Text reads: The psychological system was developed in the United States by John E. Reid in the 1950s, who was a psychologist, polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer.
Per John E. Reid & Associates website:
John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. began developing Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation techniques in 1947
[1]
Per the Marshall Project:
The technique was first introduced in the 1940s and 50s by polygraph expert John Reid, who intended it to be a modern-era reform — replacing the beatings that police frequently used to elicit information.
[2]
Change text to:
The psychological system was developed in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s by John E. Reid, who was a psychologist, polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer.
I'm a book editor and came across this entry while fact-checking a manuscript. It seems this date should be changed, unless someone has additional information?
Bradanini123 (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bradanini123
Tagged some stuff
[edit]Which has then been reverted with a non-sensical response. Saying "also it's not a torture technique" - which is not a claim the edits I made make.
- "it has been a mainstay of police procedure" - given that next to this it says "particuarly in the US", it implies it's a global statement, the nearest cite says nothing of the sort.
- "and Reid's technique had been adopted by law enforcement agencies of many different types" - which I tagged as vague, because like it's vague. The cite says nothing about this and certainly doesn't help to make it any less vague. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- My revert reverted your edit as well as edits by another anonymous editor before hand if you look at the page history that did indeed add Category:Psychological torture techniques to this article (see diff). So the comments on torture were not directed at you.
- I think you're misreading that statement - I don't read it as making a global claim myself, but rather saying "this is mostly popular in US policing, but we're not saying it's exclusive to the US and probably has been adopted in some other places." I agree the cite doesn't talk about international usage much although I'm sure it's not unknown or anything (if nothing else from non-American police officers who watched American media and just copied what they saw). I'm open to a rephrasing that makes this clear to both of us, but I don't think we disagree on the citation.
- For "many different types", I think it's clear the intent is to mean that it's talking about city police, county police, FBI, coast guard, Park Service, etc. The US has many different overlapping layers of investigative authority, and it's not just one specific police department and others. That said, looking at the reference, it's... not great. 0 citations for a paper? It's also claiming that Reid technique interrogations are inadmissible, not that they should be inadmissible, which... okay, I get he's making a point, but come on. SnowFire (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- For the cat fair enough, didn't notice that, I've removed the CAT as I agree such a claim as implied by the cat would need to be well documented.
- I really don't see how you can read the statement "it has been a mainstay of police procedure, especially in the United States." being anything other than a claim of pervasive usage, by all means reword it if we can't cite it. To be clear I really don't know elsewhere how broadly it was used, so I can't disagree as such, but that's why I see the citation as missing.
- For the many different types, it's not really clear to me, and really given your answer I think that is an overlap with the previous point, your answer suggest it's a very US centric view. If these is some clarity that many different US law enforcement bodies, then perhaps I can have little objection - though others may. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)