When you see footage of real police interrogations usually on some documentary or news magazine, like 48 Hours, they show a suspect being mentally beaten down but they NEVER show these people claiming their 4th or 5th Amendment rights. Also, you never see a lawyer present. Perhaps the latter is because police arrest you and interrogate before you have a chance to seek legal council (how is that legal?) assuming the suspect can afford a lawyer (yeah, I know one will be appointed, but not until trial, right?). But, what about the first half of my question? Or, do most/all “cooperate” (coerced, really) because the police have them scared to death? …and, thus they wouldn’t dare plead the 4th or 5th? Factual answers, please, if known.
IANAL, but I would guess most Americans are Constitution-ignorant enough to really not know that they don’t have to talk to cops, and also that the psychological pressure to talk can be very great, even if someone does know their rights. Innocent people, especially have the urge to talk and make themselves heard.
I see lots of legal shows like The First 48 where the person of interest will indeed invoke their right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer. I assume most people are aware of their Miranda rights from TV or movies. In addition, the police are required to read their rights to any people they want to question.
Here is a former police officer and interrogator talking about why people talk to the police (queued to his bit in the video):
IANAL but I’m not sure this is true. I believe the police can question somebody without reading them their Miranda rights. But any information gained as a result of that questioning will not be admissible in court.
I believe as long as they have not arrested you they do not have to read you your rights. They can ask you whatever they want and use what you say to them in court.
If you are in such a situation I have read it is best to ask if you are under arrest and, if not, if you are free to leave. If not, ask why not. If you can leave, then leave and call your attorney. Definitely still assert your right to remain silent and not answer their questions (IIRC the supreme court has said you need to be explicit about invoking your right to remain silent).
All this is correct.
I haven’t watched any of the posted video so I don’t know what it says yet.
But in my experience one of the multiple reasons guilty people talk to the police is because they are arrogant and think they can outsmart us.
Another is because they don’t think they did anything wrong even if they actually did the act they’re being question about.
I.e. ”The bitch was disrespecting me so I smashed her face in”
I’m willing to bet that video puts more emphasis on interview techniques and intimidation rather than on the shoulders of the suspect.
My experience was the opposite. It’s guilty people who want to talk. There are three motives for this:
-
Genuine remorse: The person acknowledges they committed a crime and feels bad about it. They will talk about what happened as part of this process.
-
False narrative: The person knows that they committed a crime but doesn’t want to face the consequences. This person wants to establish a false story that makes them look innocent.
-
Self-justification: The person acknowledges they committed the act but doesn’t feel the act should be considered a crime. This person wants to explain their motivation.
I guess it depends on what you define as intimidation. Is him sitting in the room silently doing paperwork intimidation?
Mainly he notes that he is an expert in interrogation and those in front of him simply will lose in almost all cases. He makes the example of getting into a boxing ring with an Olympic boxer and you have never boxed a day in your life. You will lose.
He also notes the many ways a person can incriminate themselves even when they think they are doing no such thing. As they try to talk their way out of being prosecuted they tend to get themselves in trouble.
To add to what pkbites said… When I was training new police officers they often asked the same thing (i.e., why did he even talk to us?). My personal explanation was that by the time we caught them for something, they had spent a lifetime talking their way out of trouble, or minimizing it tremendously, at home, school, with romantic partners, etc. The people in their lives would accept dumb excuses for a wide variety of reasons, but in the end life would go on. (For example, “I just got here,” was a favorite, and people caught with drugs actually told us, “these aren’t my pants,” on many occasions.) I would tell my new cops, “this guy has been out here hustling these excuses since you were in grade school.”
Also, an interrogation is a pretty thorough process conducted by someone who is trained to pay close attention and who is good at remembering details. Most people being interviewed can’t remember everything they said and can trip themselves up.
There’s what I call “Judge Judy logic” - “He wouldn’t pay back the $200 he owed me so I broke into his place to take his TV.” People really think that two wrongs make a right.
This I think is the key one. Mommy would let anything slide rather than argue, so the perp grew up thinking his dumb alibis and excuses were perfectly valid and capable of deflecting trouble and he was one smart cookie. He’d think he could talk his way out of anything, when really people couldn’t be bothered arguing. (Or knew pointing out flaws in excuses was a waste of time…)
The apparent question of the OP — why do so many suspects act like this? — is undermined by the unexamined implication buried in the first sentence:
There is nothing in any of this to suggest that the footage aired during these shows is representative of any proportion of actual interrogations. Rather, these shows are predisposed to show footage that is interesting.
In other words, the reason you never see suspects clam up and calmly request legal representation is because those scenes are boring and repetitive. If it’s on TV, its programming is inherently biased against those characteristics (in the context of attracting ratings, not in the context of any one person’s individual taste).
You cannot draw broad statistical conclusions from anything you see on television. Programs like these will show you selected anecdotes on the basis of their self-contained drama, and the most you can say about “why would someone do this” is to examine the behavior of each suspect individually in their own specific circumstances. One cannot extrapolate to the behavior of suspects generally because we have no way to know whether these suspects represent a small, medium, or large fraction of the overall set of interrogations.
I see lot of personal opinions here but no answers from scientific studies or such.
Request this be moved to IMHO.
As Cervaise said, video excerpts from police questioning of suspects is highly likely to be edited to get to the parts of interest to (for instance) the audience for true crime shows. What you don’t see is of value to the prosecution, which will generally have video evidence that the suspect(s) were indeed advised of their rights to remain silent, to have an attorney present etc.
"There are several reasons that can motivate or persuade a suspect to answer questions or confess. Statements or confessions are often made despite the warnings that would seemingly deter anyone from saying anything. These reasons include:
- Wishing to exonerate oneself,
- Attempting deception to outsmart the system,
- Conscience,
- Providing an explanation to minimize one’s involvement in the crime, or
- Surrender in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The OP is specifically seeking factual answers, so I think we’ll keep this here for now.
You need to watch more episodes; I’ve seen suspects ask for a lawyer many times; it happens in maybe about 1/10 interviews they show (and who knows how many that don’t make it on TV?). It is usually followed by the detectives all sighing, scurrying back to their offices, and re-thinking a new strategy to move the case forward or build more evidence without a confession.
It’s not so much that the police are experts at getting people to talk; most of the people who talk without a lawyer are just dumb and/or ignorant. In a recent thread I asked about detectives’ training and use of deception, and despite a few courses being out there (which don’t seem to be very highly regarded), it’s mostly just learned on the job from peers and isn’t as sophisticated as it’s made out to be. Dumb people make the job easier.
Right. Specifically First 48 only shows cases that are solved. I don’t know how many cases they film that don’t go anywhere but I’ve heard specifically from someone involved in the show that those cases will never get on air. They purposely select cases that have a conclusion. Showing someone not talking is boring tv.
Lawyers are appointed for indigent defendants way before trial. But typically not as early as the questioning described in the OP. At that point, the suspect should say “I’m not answering any questions until I consult with an attorney.” You don’t actually have to have an attorney to invoke that right.
It can be simplified to, “lawyer”, I’ve seen that.
Also, after an invocation of the right to remain silent, the police can wait a while, and then try again to see if the person is willing to talk.
But once the right to counsel is invoked, police cannot re-engage until the person has had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer. So it’s much more effective at stopping questioning.