Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Although interview and interrogation procedures have much in common, they have several differences. The purpose of both processes is to obtain information by asking questions. However, if the interview is an informal conversation, then the interrogation is a specific procedure for asking questions about the crime that has happened (Miller et al., 2018).
Discussion
In the case of an interview, the respondent can choose the place and time of communication, and during interrogation, this is determined by the investigator (Miller et al., 2018). One of the main difficulties in interrogation is not to make the interrogated hostile to oneself. This is often quite difficult, especially if the person has something to hide, but there are several ways to reduce this likelihood. The investigator should not start the interrogation with attacks or immediately presume that the person being interrogated is guilty; sometimes, it is worth showing empathy. With a sincere consciousness, it is much easier to achieve truthful testimony.
The 5th amendment protections set out the basic rules of justice that ensure that human rights are respected, such as the right not to incriminate oneself and not be punished until sentencing. Compliance with these rules is an essential part of the fair justice system, and neglect of them violates human rights and may result in criminal liability (Rogers et al., 2021). Mirandas warning is that the interviewee must be warned of their constitutional rights before communication begins. This message itself is the first step that prevents the violation of the 5th amendment during interrogation.
Conclusion
In the communication process, one should not psychologically put pressure on the interrogated person to get an answer from him to a question that he refused to answer (Surmon-Böhr et al., 2020). If the interrogated person decides to exercise his right to remain silent, this should be documented, as in some cases, silence itself is evidence.
References
Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kelly, C. E. (2018). Accusatorial and information-gathering interview and interrogation methods: a multi-country comparison. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(9), 935-956. Web.
Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., Donnelly, J. W., & Drogin, E. Y. (2021). Protecting the rights of the accused: use of Spanish-language Miranda warnings in central Florida. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 32(1), 119-130. Web.
Surmon-Böhr, F., Alison, L., Christiansen, P., & Alison, E. (2020). The right to silence and the permission to talk: Motivational interviewing and high-value detainees. American Psychologist, 75(7), 1011. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.