Today I read that Governor McCrory has set up a 24 hour bathroom hotline to facilitate the reporting of persons of questionable gender, an “HB2 Offender Hotline.”
Although I doubt the veracity of this “news story,” don’t get any ideas. To the citizens of North Carolina, do not think that you can discreetly take photographs in the bathroom of gender-suspicious persons. There are a plethora of potential pitfalls with collecting evidence and taking photographs in a bathroom while an unsuspecting person is trying to engage in a private excretory function. In addition to being morally offensive, that method of evidence collection is called Secret Peeping and North Carolina law prohibits it. North Carolina General Statute § 14-202 is the Secret Peeping law which prohibits spying or secretly peeping into a room or bathroom for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, another person without their consent. Violation of the law is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Additionally, any person, who secretly peeps while in possession of any device which may be used to create a photographic image, is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.
I will not be your peeper and I advise my other peeps not to peep either.
Month: April 2016
The focus of this blog series has been to expose the deliberate interplay of psychological techniques designed to elicit a confession. The nine step method explained in Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (1986) by Inbau and Reid culminates in steps seven to nine and the resulting confession.
Step seven is the alternative question. An alternative question is a question which presents two choices to the suspect concerning some aspect of his crime. Although both choices are an admission of guilt, one of the choices is morally appealing. An example of an alternative question includes, “Have you done this many times before or was this the first time?”; “Did you blow that money on drugs and partying, or did you use it to buy food for your family?”; “Was this whole thing your idea or did you get talked into it?”
None of these alternative questions addresses the actual consequences of the crime which the suspect may encounter so as not to be interpreted as a promise of leniency. Once a suspect opts for the more palatable option and acknowledges culpability, the oral confession follows.
In step eight, the interrogator develops corroborating evidence to fortify the acceptance of responsibility and obtains an oral confession.
In step nine, the oral confession is reduced to writing.
The interrogation is analogous to a dance; one party leads and controls the steps of the passive party. The first step is the accusation which advances to the development of the theme. The interrogator is always leading. The suspect will try to assert himself only to be ignored or dismissed. When the interrogator has refused to hear any denials, the suspect will withdraw and become passive. Once this vulnerable mood sets it, the interrogator switches tactics and draws the suspect in close and calls him by his name. Feeling validated by this attention, the interrogator delivers the alternative question and the suspect is presented with two choices with one being clearly more desirable. If the suspect selects an option, the interrogator needs only to wrap up the dance; the confession is a done deal.
The interrogation is never an opportunity for a suspect to explain his side. It is never anything other than a method by which the interrogator extracts a confession. The Miranda admonition cautions a suspect that he has the right to be silent and anything said may be used against him in court. Heed the admonition and don’t think that you are the exception; the person who can use the interrogation to your benefit. Stay silent and ask for an attorney.
The interrogation has begun; the interrogator has accused the suspect of the crime and developed his theme. Now, the suspect will begin to deny guilt. According to the nine step procedure for extracting a confession introduced in Criminal Interrogation and Confessions by Inbau and Reid, both guilty and innocent suspects will deny the accusations. Despite denials, a Reid trained interrogator “knows” that the suspect is guilty so there is no room for “weak denials.” Denials are not tolerated since the more a suspect denies involvement or is permitted to repeat or elaborate on a denial; the less likely a confession will result. Consequently, if the suspect tries to deny, the interrogator will ignore, interrupt or dismiss the denial by saying “we are beyond that point and we know you did it.”
By refusing to allow the suspect to deny the accusations or offer any details relating to his innocence, the officer overcomes the objections of the suspect and minimizes the importance of what the suspect has to say. An “objection” by the suspect is a statement offered by the suspect to prove that the interrogator’s accusation is false. In this step, the interrogator takes the suspect’s objection and uses it to further the interrogator’s own theme of guilt.
Having been rebuffed when attempting to deny, having all claims of innocence turned against him and not being able to get a word in edgewise, the suspect begins to withdraw. Responding to the suspect’s passive mood, the investigator moves his chair closer to the suspect in order to appear emotionally sympathetic and empathetic and quickly procures and retains the suspect’s attention by cultivating a personal connection. The interrogator moves closer to and physically touches the suspect. The officer maintains eye contact and begins calling the suspect by his first name. While the suspect’s “passive mood” is being carefully cultivated, the interrogator will condense his theme to one or two central elements and moves into the next step of the process designed to elicit the initial admission of guilt.
The last blog entry of this series will address this final stage.