4 ms·

> I wonder how many interviews start with the perpetrator really having no rationale, and ending in them simply back-rationalizing their emotions That's the co

by flir 2y ago

> I wonder how many interviews start with the perpetrator really having no rationale, and ending in them simply back-rationalizing their emotions That's the core of the Reid technique, isn't it? Here's two rationales, one socially acceptable and one socially unacceptable. Pick one. We don't actually care which one you pick, because a confession is still a confession, but we're handing you a convenient narrative you can use to justify your actions (a carrot), and an alternative people might believe about you if you don't pick Box A (a stick). Something similar happens in high-pressure sales. I bet those guys would make great interrogators.

jayrot 2y ago
Wasn't familar with the "Reid Technique" so I had to look it up. One of the opening wikipedia paragraphs is just perfect. >In 1955 in Lincoln, Nebraska, John E. Reid helped gain a confession from a suspect, Darrel Parker, for Parker's wife's murder. This case established Reid's reputation and popularized his technique.[3] Parker recanted his confession the next day, but it was admitted to evidence at his trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was later determined to be innocent, after another man confessed and was found to have been the perpetrator. Parker sued the state for wrongful conviction; it paid him $500,000 in compensation.[4]
- bagels 2y ago
  It's the same story with: bite mark analysis, police dogs, hair comparison analysis, firearm toolmark analysis, many arson analysis techniques, bloodstain patterns. Discredited or unproven, yet still used in court.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    Having served on a jury I implore you: Stay as far away from the criminal justice system as you can. Once you're in that courtroom your life is a coin toss away from effectively ending. footnote: and regardless of innocence, you will be running from the arrest the rest of your life.
    - mindcrime 2y ago
      I will add this: serving on a jury is - IMO - a very valuable experience. Or, that is, IF you think you might ever find yourself on trial, I think it would be very valuable to have served on a jury yourself. You'll understand a lot about jury dynamics, and how juries make decisions (hint: it's not always as cut and dried as the facts and evidence presented). You may have insights that even your lawyer won't have, depending on whether of not they themselves have ever served on a live jury. Will this information be useful to you? I believe it well could be. It's hard to explain exactly how/why without actually going through the experience though. And the verdict will still depend on many factors, many of which will be out of your control. But a few insights into the deep inner details of the process might be enough to tip the odds in your favor if things are close to begin with. Another thing I'll add: a good lawyer really helps. The case I was on, the defense attorney was just totally on-point and absolutely "nailed it". Every single time - EVERY time - a witness for the prosecution said something questionable, or contradictory, or that in any way exposed a possible hole in the prosecution's story, he was all over it. By halfway through the trial I was rooting for the guy because watching him work was like watching a maestro in action. Hell, in the jury room during deliberations, we were all joking about how "If I'm ever on trial for a serious crime, I want this guy defending me." That said, there's always an element of luck involved. In this case, I'm pretty sure the defendant was guilty. But I mean "pretty sure" in the sense that my subjective Bayesian posterior for "guilty" would be more than 50%... but the prosecution definitely did not prove he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". And aside from the skillful performance of the defense attorney pointing out holes in the story being told by the prosecution, was the simple fact that there were holes. And part of that was because the investigators were bumbling and incompetent, borderline "Barney Fife" or "Officer Barbrady" types. To the point that in the jury room during deliberations, we were joking about how "If I'm ever under investigation for a serious crime, I hope this guy is leading the investigation." A better investigation might well has resulted in a guilty verdict, but as it was we acquitted the guy. Another observation: the defendant took the stand to testify. Usually not recommended for criminal defendants, but it worked for him. Why? Well, not so much because of what he said or didn't say, but because the prosecutor acted like a dick towards the guy, belittling him and demeaning him, talking down to him, and just generally being a prick. Now strictly speaking, none of that had anything to do with whether the defendant was guilty or not. But it created sympathy for the defendant, and the prosecutor basically turned himself into the villain. Did if affect the outcome? TBH, yeah, I think it kinda did. Things were close as it was, and that little bit of extra sympathy might easily have been the deciding factor. But the thing is, this is one of those "things that are outside of your control" if you're ever on trial. Maybe your prosecutor will be more professional and under control. Not much you can do about that. But just seeing how emotional aspects like "sympathy for the defendant" CAN play into a decision can be valuable, I believe. Anyway... sorry for the long rant. I'll just say that if you ever get invited to jury selection, I'd encourage you to NOT try to "get out of it".
pessimizer 2y ago
> We don't actually care which one you pick, because a confession is still a confession Yes, but as you note, the point is to make it sound like barely a confession, the minimum possible confession. This makes it just as attractive to the innocent as for the guilty. It's offering a minimally painful way out of a deeply stressful situation. And as you say, the punchline is that not confessing would lead to minimal or no pain, and every level of confession will equally turn out much worse. An innocent person is just trying to escape from that room, and is being conned into agreeing to a long prison sentence in order to do it.
- flir 2y ago
  Totally. I remembered the phrase I should have used: a false dichotomy (https://xkcd.com/2592/ https://xkcd.com/2592/) If you were going to buy a car today sir, would your budget be above or below $40k?
  - justinclift 2y ago
    "$40k is way too much on the low side. Sorry, I'm looking for something a lot higher end." And walk off never to come back. ;)
marcosdumay 2y ago
> I bet those guys would make great interrogators. Maybe on the context of US criminal interrogators, where discovering what actually happened isn't one of the goals.
JohnFen 2y ago
> Something similar happens in high-pressure sales. I bet those guys would make great interrogators. Without question. The best, most accurate, and most comprehensive texts I ever read about how to go about manipulating people was a series of books aimed at car salesmen. To the degree that "mind control" is a thing, these books were clear how-to guides. And they convinced me to never talk to a car salesman.
- kjellsbells 2y ago
  Really important similarity to cops is that car sales people try really hard to control the physical space you are in. Can be simple, like, offering coffee, through shady, like taking your license on some pretext, to games like "wait here while I get the manager". The point is to lock you in a space and control the pacing and narrative. This is why if you detect any nonsense like this, you should always remember that at any time in a car buying transaction, you can just walk.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > you should always remember that at any time in a car buying transaction, you can just walk. Not just with cars!

by flir 2y ago

jayrot 2y ago

Wasn't familar with the "Reid Technique" so I had to look it up. One of the opening wikipedia paragraphs is just perfect. >In 1955 in Lincoln, Nebraska, John E. Reid helped gain a confession from a suspect, Darrel Parker, for Parker's wife's murder. This case established Reid's reputation and popularized his technique.[3] Parker recanted his confession the next day, but it was admitted to evidence at his trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was later determined to be innocent, after another man confessed and was found to have been the perpetrator. Parker sued the state for wrongful conviction; it paid him $500,000 in compensation.[4]

bagels 2y ago
It's the same story with: bite mark analysis, police dogs, hair comparison analysis, firearm toolmark analysis, many arson analysis techniques, bloodstain patterns. Discredited or unproven, yet still used in court.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Having served on a jury I implore you: Stay as far away from the criminal justice system as you can. Once you're in that courtroom your life is a coin toss away from effectively ending. footnote: and regardless of innocence, you will be running from the arrest the rest of your life.
  - mindcrime 2y ago
    I will add this: serving on a jury is - IMO - a very valuable experience. Or, that is, IF you think you might ever find yourself on trial, I think it would be very valuable to have served on a jury yourself. You'll understand a lot about jury dynamics, and how juries make decisions (hint: it's not always as cut and dried as the facts and evidence presented). You may have insights that even your lawyer won't have, depending on whether of not they themselves have ever served on a live jury. Will this information be useful to you? I believe it well could be. It's hard to explain exactly how/why without actually going through the experience though. And the verdict will still depend on many factors, many of which will be out of your control. But a few insights into the deep inner details of the process might be enough to tip the odds in your favor if things are close to begin with. Another thing I'll add: a good lawyer really helps. The case I was on, the defense attorney was just totally on-point and absolutely "nailed it". Every single time - EVERY time - a witness for the prosecution said something questionable, or contradictory, or that in any way exposed a possible hole in the prosecution's story, he was all over it. By halfway through the trial I was rooting for the guy because watching him work was like watching a maestro in action. Hell, in the jury room during deliberations, we were all joking about how "If I'm ever on trial for a serious crime, I want this guy defending me." That said, there's always an element of luck involved. In this case, I'm pretty sure the defendant was guilty. But I mean "pretty sure" in the sense that my subjective Bayesian posterior for "guilty" would be more than 50%... but the prosecution definitely did not prove he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". And aside from the skillful performance of the defense attorney pointing out holes in the story being told by the prosecution, was the simple fact that there were holes. And part of that was because the investigators were bumbling and incompetent, borderline "Barney Fife" or "Officer Barbrady" types. To the point that in the jury room during deliberations, we were joking about how "If I'm ever under investigation for a serious crime, I hope this guy is leading the investigation." A better investigation might well has resulted in a guilty verdict, but as it was we acquitted the guy. Another observation: the defendant took the stand to testify. Usually not recommended for criminal defendants, but it worked for him. Why? Well, not so much because of what he said or didn't say, but because the prosecutor acted like a dick towards the guy, belittling him and demeaning him, talking down to him, and just generally being a prick. Now strictly speaking, none of that had anything to do with whether the defendant was guilty or not. But it created sympathy for the defendant, and the prosecutor basically turned himself into the villain. Did if affect the outcome? TBH, yeah, I think it kinda did. Things were close as it was, and that little bit of extra sympathy might easily have been the deciding factor. But the thing is, this is one of those "things that are outside of your control" if you're ever on trial. Maybe your prosecutor will be more professional and under control. Not much you can do about that. But just seeing how emotional aspects like "sympathy for the defendant" CAN play into a decision can be valuable, I believe. Anyway... sorry for the long rant. I'll just say that if you ever get invited to jury selection, I'd encourage you to NOT try to "get out of it".

pessimizer 2y ago

> We don't actually care which one you pick, because a confession is still a confession Yes, but as you note, the point is to make it sound like barely a confession, the minimum possible confession. This makes it just as attractive to the innocent as for the guilty. It's offering a minimally painful way out of a deeply stressful situation. And as you say, the punchline is that not confessing would lead to minimal or no pain, and every level of confession will equally turn out much worse. An innocent person is just trying to escape from that room, and is being conned into agreeing to a long prison sentence in order to do it.

flir 2y ago
Totally. I remembered the phrase I should have used: a false dichotomy (https://xkcd.com/2592/ https://xkcd.com/2592/) If you were going to buy a car today sir, would your budget be above or below $40k?
- justinclift 2y ago
  "$40k is way too much on the low side. Sorry, I'm looking for something a lot higher end." And walk off never to come back. ;)

marcosdumay 2y ago

> I bet those guys would make great interrogators. Maybe on the context of US criminal interrogators, where discovering what actually happened isn't one of the goals.

JohnFen 2y ago

> Something similar happens in high-pressure sales. I bet those guys would make great interrogators. Without question. The best, most accurate, and most comprehensive texts I ever read about how to go about manipulating people was a series of books aimed at car salesmen. To the degree that "mind control" is a thing, these books were clear how-to guides. And they convinced me to never talk to a car salesman.

kjellsbells 2y ago
Really important similarity to cops is that car sales people try really hard to control the physical space you are in. Can be simple, like, offering coffee, through shady, like taking your license on some pretext, to games like "wait here while I get the manager". The point is to lock you in a space and control the pacing and narrative. This is why if you detect any nonsense like this, you should always remember that at any time in a car buying transaction, you can just walk.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > you should always remember that at any time in a car buying transaction, you can just walk. Not just with cars!