Deception in the Investigative, Interrogative, and Testimonial Processes

Abstract

This research paper will provide the reader an understanding of deception in various stages of criminal cases. Overall three processes are analyzed; investigative, interrogative, and testimonial processes. In the context of theoretical information about these three processes, three pragmatic scenarios are also addressed. This paper aims at providing two juxtaposing ethical behaviors that occur in the criminal justice system. For instance, investigating officers are not only allowed, however they are even encouraged to use deception during the investigation and interrogation processes as a means to obtain the truth and ultimately seek justice. This process of deception illustrates the ends justify the means, by doing or stating something wrong to achieve the positive outcome.

ABSTRACTII

INTRODUCTION1

DISCUSSION1

Identification of Deception1

Deception in Investigative Process2

Deception in Interrogative Process2

Deception in Testimonial Process3

Ethical to lie to obtain the truth: The Ends Justify the Means4

Conflict between the Codes of Ethics4

Actual Conduct of Law Enforcement5

Role of Physical Behavior and Nonverbal Communication in Detecting Deception6

CONCLUSION6

REFERENCES7

Deception in the Investigative, Interrogative, and Testimonial Processes

Introduction

Deception had been widely used for detecting truth in the criminal cases. In the framework of law and criminology, the term 'deception' identifies any wrong conduct performed or misleading statement communicated by a police officer to discover the truth behind the criminal act. There are three phases of deception throughout a detecting process, which can have disparities based on the extent of the criminal processes. Three phases of detecting entail investigation, then interrogation and ultimately to testimonial.

Discussion

Deception is usually permitted during investigative phase; however it is endured to a diminutive degree during interrogation and not often appropriate or tolerated during court proceedings. Consequently, this entails swindling offenders during the investigative and interrogative phases, in order to collect sufficient information to take into custody a suspected offender. Law officers like policemen usually utilize deception in their identification process. Thus, the practice of deception is perceived as an absurdity, as law officers have to play some fiddle to arrest another fiddle.

Identification of Deception

Forensic specialists are anticipated to be capable to identify deception and validate truth in behavior of humans during their professional relationship with others. Nevertheless, several examiners obtain small training in this field, which can expand many disciplines. In the court or justice system, an incident of truth is either verified or refuted by testimony. There are fundamentally four types of testimony; real or physical proof, such as knives, drugs, and bullets, documentary proof such as, notes, contracts, letters, and wills, judicial notice proof, for instance the judge can find out some facts as a common knowledge e.g. the month of April follows the month of March, societal laws of the nation. The fourth type is testimonial proof such as verbal evidence communicated by present witness in a court, under pledge (Annon, 1994).

Deception in Investigative Process

A valid and pragmatic method should be developed to obtain and evaluate information throughout an investigative process. The current research is an evident of one such method of interviewing and integrity evaluation, called “Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception ...